In posts like this, you imply that the right answer hinges on a consensus. But in other posts, you make it clear that if your view isn't the same as the consensus, the consensus is wrong. — Terrapin Station

No. In anticipation of your objection, I tried to word it in such a way as to allow for both interpretations: that it's the right answer, as I would say, but which you wouldn't accept; and that it's the consensus, or resolution, which both of us would accept. (You might get funny about the word "resolution" here, but remember that this is in the context of a group trying to resolve a problem, and that couldn't happen if there had to be unanimous agreement where someone is being difficult (almost on purpose, it seems, merely for argument's sake). So, to be realistic, like I said, your disagreement would ultimately be disregarded in order to reach a resolution).

And that's why broad agreement is useful (which is pretty obvious anyway, and so shouldn't even need to be explained).

And that's why broad agreement is useful — S

What Isaac was saying wasn't that a broad agreement is useful period. (Not that he'd disagree with that, but that's not what he was saying.)

He was saying that assuming widely accepted ethical normatives was useful for having an ethics discussion in a philosophy context.

I don't assume that something that seems like a contradiction to me both (a) would seem like a contradiction to the person who said it, and (b) is something that the person would think they should avoid (just in case it would seem like a contradiction to them). — Terrapin Station

Granted. But your position in any discussion must surely be based on whether you think there's a contradiction, and whether you think it should be avoided. So your charitable understanding of another's beliefs is noble, but not really relevant. Otherwise, we're back to just saying "oh really" in response to everything.

I don't automatically assume that people are morons who are posting something they just came up with two minutes ago. — Terrapin Station

Seriously, you're either extremely dishonest, extremely moronic, or there's something seriously wrong with you re a mental illness. — Terrapin Station

Glad I manged to make an exception to your general rule...

Your whole position here has not been "really, you think hate speech should be banned, how interesting, tell me more... ", it has from the start been "if you can't show me the exact evidence I count as acceptable, using the rule-making methodology I approve of, you're a moron". I don't mind that approach, I prefer people who have some passion behind their philosophy, but it's disingenuous to paint this 'curious curator of ideas' picture just to support your position here. You're just as passionate about telling everyone what's 'right' as the rest of us.

And here...

If the person can't or won't respond to questions in good faith, then I might change my tune — Terrapin Station

...is where the inevitable judgement comes in. All you've done is renamed it. You don't judge people as being contradictory, you judge them instead, of arguing in 'bad faith', which means what exactly, if not some form of contradiction between things they're saying?

He was saying that assuming widely accepted ethical normatives was useful for having an ethics discussion in a philosophy context. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and my example shows that. What I said is both true in general and in this specific context. Presumably you have no valid objection, or you would have raised one by now. All you've done is respond with red herrings.

It's useful to assume that consequences like those mentioned earlier matter, because we're talking to people, and not brick walls. Some people like to act like brick walls, but again, most people do not, and so an agreement can be reached, the person acting like a brick wall can be disregarded, and for all practical purposes, the problem is resolved.

Your whole position here has not been "really, you think hate speech should be banned, how interesting, tell me more... ", it has from the start been "if you can't show me the exact evidence I count as acceptable, using the rule-making methodology I approve of, you're a moron". I don't mind that approach, I prefer people who have some passion behind their philosophy, but it's disingenuous to paint this 'curious curator of ideas' picture just to support your position here. You're just as passionate about telling everyone what's 'right' as the rest of us. — Isaac

I know, right. I find that funny, too. It's like when says, "You're interested in debating. I'm interested in having conversations".

You aren't fooling anyone. You're interested in debating, just like the rest of us. And you think you're right, just like the rest of us think we're right. It's a fake distinction and virtue signalling. It's not that you're so humble and we're so egotistical. You're one of us.

Yes, and my example shows that. — S

I have no idea where you think you showed that. And again, his comment was in the context of someone stating an argument. I didn't state any arguments, a fortiori because I don't even believe there are true or false ethical utterances.

But your position in any discussion must surely be based on whether you think there's a contradiction, and whether you think it should be avoided. — Isaac

No idea why you'd think I'd even have a "position" in a discussion, much less one based on whether I think there's a contradiction.

My position in a discussion is either (a) that I'm interested in things other people are saying for some reason, so I want to talk with them more and find out more, or (b) I want to express my opinion about something, especially if it's not an opinion that's already been expressed, and maybe someone else will find it interesting for whatever reason and want to talk about it more.

Glad I manged to make an exception to your general rule... — Isaac

The second part you quoted wasn't an automatic assumption. It was a comment made after interacting with you many times.

That you're the sort of person who routinely can't manage things like discerning the difference between an "automatic assumption" and a comment made after interacting with you many times is part of what motivated the second comment.

I have no idea where you think you showed that. And again, his comment was in the context of someone stating an argument. — Terrapin Station

Well you've seen and presumably read my replies. You're just deciding not to recognise the content.

I didn't state any arguments, a fortiori because I don't even believe there are true or false ethical utterances. — Terrapin Station

I understand that that's your stated position. It's just that, like Isaac (and no doubt others), I think that it's disingenuous, because you definitely did state an argument. The only possible way to truthfully say that you didn't do so would be to define it away, so that superficially your argument doesn't count as an argument by your definition, but that would be an example of sophism.

No idea why you'd think I'd even have a "position" in a discussion... — Terrapin Station

Oh, come on. This is getting really silly now. You stated your position in this discussion in your very first reply.

And you should know as well as I do that it's sophism to make misleading statements and then try to back them up by defining things away, like, for example: "I have no idea why you'd think that I'm a 'member' of this forum. I'm not a 'member', I just signed up and regularly participate in discussions here. That doesn't make me a 'member' of the forum".

(In The United States, Progressive Democrat) Speech of any type should be permitted and is guaranteed under The Constitution. Once we start outlawing people’s right to express their feelings we drift further way from a free nation. Yes there is always going to be people who say ignorant things but we cannot give up our rights just because of a group of people whose philosophy you don’t agree with. If they aren’t physically harming you who cares, it’s your choice to listen and if you don’t like what someone has to say simply walk away.

No idea why you'd think I'd even have a "position" in a discussion, much less one based on whether I think there's a contradiction. — Terrapin Station

Well, the evidence of my own experience, for a start. Ar you telling me you don't have a 'position' in this discussion. That if I did a quick poll now asking "what is Terrapin's position on free speech?" the majority of people reading this thread would answer "we haven't a clue, Terrapin doesn't really seem to have a 'position' on this one"?

If I ran a second poll asking people whether they thought you'd expressed any 'position' on the opposite view regarding whether it was consistent, rational etc, you think I'd get a similar answer - "no, terrapin's not really expressed a view on that one, he seems to be just impartially interested in what they have to say"?

I think it's obvious to anyone that you have a 'position' in this, and any other discussion, and that that 'position' extends to, quite bombastically, pointing out what you think are flaws in the opposing arguments. You're kidding yourself if you think you've not let that come through.

The second part you quoted wasn't an automatic assumption. It was a comment made after interacting with you many times.

That you're the sort of person who routinely can't manage things like discerning the difference between an "automatic assumption" and a comment made after interacting with you many times is part of what motivated the second comment. — Terrapin Station

Ah... so there's a number of times after which one is permitted to start judging another person rather than maintain a dispassionate interest in what they have to say? So, going back to my purposes I listed earlier, spotting flaws being one of them in other people's arguments (presumably necessary to judge them moronic, disingenuous etc), after how many posts does that become acceptable, in your view. 72 pages enough?

If you're not going to state what the supposed argument is, etc., there's nothing I can do about it.

Re the "position comment," if he's just stating that we're going to give opinions, express views, stances, etc. okay, but that would be a weird way to state that, especially in the context of "must be based on whether you think there's a contradiction," which just reads like gibberish to me.

Well, the evidence of my own experience, for a start. Ar you telling me you don't have a 'position' in this discussion. That if I did a quick poll now asking "what is Terrapin's position on free speech?" the majority of people reading this thread would answer "we haven't a clue, Terrapin doesn't really seem to have a 'position' on this one"? — Isaac

I wouldn't call my stance on free speech a "position in the discussion" and re the context you presented it especially doesn't have anything to do with basing anything on the notion of contradictions.

If I ran a second poll asking people whether they thought you'd expressed any 'position' on the opposite view regarding whether it was consistent, rational etc, you think I'd get a similar answer — Isaac

So then let's present any evidence that I'm criticizing any ethical views on whether they're consistent, or whether I'm criticizing any views at all on whether they're "rational."

I think it's obvious to anyone that you have a 'position' in this, and any other discussion, and that that 'position' extends to, quite bombastically, pointing out what you think are flaws in the opposing arguments. — Isaac

Take my first post in this thread. I said:

"In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

"I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence."

That's just giving a different view, because I have a different view. It's not pointing out "flaws" in the other argument. It's a different view.

My second post, the fourth post after the above on the first page, is just clarifying my view that speech doesn't cause violence in light of a standard question about that. Again, that's not pointing out "flaws" in the other argument. It's further explaining my own view. It's not an argument for my view, just more details about my view.

My third post, in response to a comment about my second, said, "That's not a direct cause because I could just tell him to screw off. I have to decide to do what was asked (well, or 'commanded')"

which is again explaining my view in counterdistinction to the one presented. I'm explaining why I don't consider that causal. It's not an argument for my view. I'm stating (a) how I use the term "cause," and implying that (b) in order for me to think that something is a moral or legal problem, it has to involve causality in the way I use that term. Again, this is simply giving more details. I didn't state that I consider causes to only involve force, but that should have been contextually clear from my comment. At this point we also begin moving away from the ethics discussion, because people begin to want to have an ontological discussion about causality.

My next post, a few below that (I'm not quoting the whole thing because it was longer), was again responding to questions, so I give more details--though not arguments--about my view (this time also re fraud, etc.). So still no arguments from me, no "bombastically pointing out what I think are flaws in opposing arguments." Not that I never point out flaws in other arguments, when someone actually presents an argument (see Bartricks' threads, for example), but much of the time, that's not at all what I'm doing. You might read it that way because of your own biases, and maybe many others do, too, but that's not what I'm doing much of the time.

what definition of racism are you using?

what definition of racism are you using? — Hassiar

Interesting first post in context, lol

Do let's continue this as my favorite sidebar though: discussing how to discuss things, with an emphasis on criticism of how I discuss things, as if that's going to lead to me discussing things any differently than I do.

Do let's continue this as my favorite sidebar though: discussing how to discuss things, with an emphasis on criticism of how I discuss things, as if that's going to lead to me discussing things any differently than I do. — Terrapin Station

On the contrary, I enjoy the way you discuss things and would have no interest in causing you to discuss them any differently. What we're discussing here is the way you discuss the way you discuss things. You missed a meta-level out. We were merely discussing the discussion, pages back. That's old hat. We're now well into discussing the discussion about the discussion.

Although, my current post is obviously the first in discussing the discussion about discussing the discussion.

So perhaps we should stop there?

Was your position in this part of the discussion based on whether you think there was a contradiction?

Was your position in this part of the discussion based on whether you think there was a contradiction? — Terrapin Station

Yes. Put (very) simply I believe that you cannot rationally hold an absolutist position about free speech, and also a concern for the welfare of those around you without contradiction. I merely presumed you had the latter, without asking, and so holding the former would be a contradiction.

The reasoning behind thinking that those two positions are rationally contradictory is not immediately obvious, so it seemed reasonable that it might well be something I had stumbled across which you may not have done.

We agree that there is no such thing as correct when it comes to purely ethical statements. "One should do A", and "one should strive for B" are two such statements. But "one should do A because it causes B, which one should strive for" is an ethical statement but one which does admit of 'right/wrong' judgements because it contains within it a hidden empirical claim (A causes B). Likewise the opposite would be true (with the empirical claim being that A does not cause B).

I think that the vast majority of ethical normative statements, including the ones you've forwarded here, are of the above form (including logical, as well as empirical claims), and thus open to rational counter-argument.

it's especially important since the definition has changed a lot over a short amount of time and so it's easy to appreciate that others might be using any of a variety of definitions

Yes. Put (very) simply I believe that you cannot rationally hold an absolutist position about free speech, and also a concern for the welfare of those around you without contradiction. — Isaac

I wouldn't say something like "I have a concern for the welfare of those around me" without qualification. Because that's way too vague. It's like very broad/general statements about "suffering" and "harm," Both way too vague in my opinion.

For example, I think that people should often enough be potentially subject to, and should often enough subject themselves to, things that they do not like, things that they would rather were different, etc.

Many people might call those things "suffering" or "harms" or "negative re welfare." And maybe some wouldn't, but I'd have no way of knowing whether a particular person considers the stuff in question "suffering" etc. without asking them how they categorize. So terms like that are too vague for my tastes, too vague to represent my views, etc.

======================

It's kind of patronizing to think that someone has the view they have due to probably not thinking about the consequences of it. Rather, they probably would disagree with you whether the consequences are acceptable or even desirable.

I actually forgot that the first post in the thread even mentioned racism. It seemed weird in the context of where the discussion is now to bring up racism, lol.

For example, I think that people should often enough be potentially subject to, and should often enough subject themselves to, things that they do not like, things that they would rather were different, etc. — Terrapin Station

So your claim is what? You were just born that way? This feeling just popped into your head one day? Because I think the same as you, but I quite clearly think it because toughness is a virtue which I have good reason to believe will lead to a society of people better off than otherwise. Ie we still get down to the vague notion of a 'better' society.

Are you really claiming that this idea of being subjected to small hardships being a good thing is not itself based on the idea that doing so might achieve some other objective, it just appeared in your mind unbidden and without further consideration?

It's kind of patronizing to think that someone has the view they have due to probably not thinking about the consequences of it. Rather, they probably would disagree with you whether the consequences are acceptable or even desirable. — Terrapin Station

I don't think it's patronising at all. Maybe if the consequences were really simple, but they rarely are. People think differently, with different focuses, it's not unreasonable to make use of that mileau, to check one's own thoughts.

lol, yourself. just coming in from reading the sticky it does seem eminently relevant. of course you don't have to answer.

If you're not going to state what the supposed argument is, etc., there's nothing I can do about it. — Terrapin Station

So you're telling me that you're incapable of remembering or looking up your own argument from earlier on in the discussion about throwing rocks off of a building? (Assuming that's what you're referring to, since you didn't quote me in your reply).

Re the "position comment," if he's just stating that we're going to give opinions, express views, stances, etc. okay, but that would be a weird way to state that, especially in the context of "must be based on whether you think there's a contradiction," which just reads like gibberish to me. — Terrapin Station

So why are you choosing to interpret it in a way that reads like gibberish? This is a big problem that you have in general. I'm not sure you realise how big a problem it is to choose to interpret things in the way that you do. You don't seem to take on board the feedback you get, so unsurprisingly the problem persists.

So your claim is what? You were just born that way? This feeling just popped into your head one day? Because I think the same as you, but I quite clearly think it because toughness is a virtue which I have good reason to believe will lead to a society of people better of than otherwise. Ie we still get down to the vague notion of a 'better' society. — Isaac

It's not based on anything like idea of what would "lead to a better society,"

That's based on the fact that anyone could find anything conceivable not to their liking, and it would be impossible to control/put sanctions on everything everyone had a problem with, especially because people often have a problem with conflicting things. (For example, "I have a problem with the truck idling below my apartment window" and "I have a problem with not being able to get deliveries to my restaurant from refrigerated trucks,"--those are conflicting things to control.)

So you're telling me that you're incapable of remembering or looking up your own argument from earlier on in the discussion about throwing rocks off of a building? (Assuming that's what you're referring to, since you didn't quote me in your reply). — S

The problem is that I didn't state an argument. I simply stated what my policy would be. What my policy would be isn't an argument for the policy.

So why are you choosing to interpret it in a way that reads like gibberish? — S

I couldn't figure out a more sensible way to read it. Hence querying about it.

That's based on the fact that anyone could find anything conceivable not to their liking, and it would be impossible to control/put sanctions on everything everyone had a problem with — Terrapin Station

Right. Which is an empirical claim and so subject to counter-argument. Have you conducted or read a survey of "everything people don't like" to see how many different things there would actually turn out to be? It also contains a logical claim (a known fallacy in fact) that a direction on a scale includes all points of that scale (slippery slope fallacy). There's no logical link between legislating against some perceived harms and legislating against all perceived harms.

Plus, why would that be a moral normative at all? If your argument genuinely is that we should make/allow people to suffer a bit simply because it would be impossible to not, then where's the normative? It's just impossible. It's not a moral normative to say we shouldnt fly, we just can't.

free speech is a clascically liberal idea, and outside of a classicaly liberal context (with things like a strong, state-run department of education,) it doesn't make sense. bring back the anti-blasphemy laws and forbid hate speech, now that would be a coherent position. also, this seems like a political topic, which i guess i'm not sure if it's allowed or what. certainly at 72 pages it's rockin' and rollin'

I wouldn't call my stance on free speech a "position in the discussion"... — Terrapin Station

I think that that's you deliberately causing problems. That's like me saying that I wouldn't call those two appendages on the lower half of my body which I use to walk, "my legs".

Which is an empirical claim and so subject to counter-argument. — Isaac

Sure. That much I agree with. (And of course, that part isn't an ethical claim.)

Have you conducted or read a survey of "everything people don't like" to see how many different things there would actually turn out to be? — Isaac

Just informally, from living and observing people over the course of almost 60 years.

It also contains a logical claim (a known fallacy in fact) that a direction on a scale includes all points of that scale (slippery slope fallacy). — Isaac

? I'm not saying anything about a "direction on a scale" or "including all points," so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

There's no logical link between legislating against some perceived harms and legislating against all perceived harms. — Isaac

I didn't say anything at all like that. Again, it's a simple fact that if we were to try to control everything that every single person doesn't care for--control it to try to get rid of the things they don't care for--it would be impossible, because the control would necessarily involve creating situations that other people don't care for, because people have conflicting desires.

So it's not possible to have a situation where some people are not subjected to stuff they don't like.

Plus, why would that be a moral normative at all? — Isaac

I'm fine with saying it's not a moral normative. I didn't have anything invested in it being a moral normative. I'm just explaining that it's why I don't use something so broad as "caring about the welfare of others" as a basis for any moral stance.