In most countries there is some due process to set the law, to interpret and to apply it, with parliaments, courts, etc. IMO, representative democracy provides an adequate framework for societies to make 'moral' (i.e. including legal, in your terminology) decisions.All of those "should" questions are moral questions in the sense I mean. You're not asking what is the law, but what ought to be the law, — Pfhorrest
In most countries there is some due process to set the law, to interpret and to apply it, with parliaments, courts, etc. IMO, representative democracy provides an adequate framework for societies to make 'moral' (i.e. including legal, in your terminology) decisions. — Olivier5
I'm tired of going around and around the same circles over and over again with Isaac in thread after thread. — Pfhorrest
the point stands: a large point of doing ontology and epistemology is to make sure that the research we teach to everyone is as little false (as close to true) as we can manage, and likewise a large point of doing ethics is to make sure that the laws we enforce on everyone are as little bad (as close to good) as we can manage. — Pfhorrest
As long as you understand that this is a process, not a final destination, and that what is deemed moral in certain times can be seen as immoral in others and vice versa, you should be fine. — Olivier5
Another caveat is that the laws are not just enforced: they are voted, adopted, interpreted and enforced. And there is often due process for that, in which ethical considerations crank in, as they should, but also politics. And in politics, individual morality doesn't quite work, as Macchiaveli showed us. — Olivier5
You seem to be saying, if the question at hand is a moral one, "regard all supposed premises as false, and so stop trying to convince each other using them as reasons." Which leaves... what? — Pfhorrest
You can't show a solipsist or metaphysical nihilist evidence that they're wrong; anything you show them, they'll take as part of the illusion of so-called "reality" that they have a prior belief in. — Pfhorrest
I said earlier that the reason to assume there is an objective reality is that it's "pragmatically useful -- it got results, it resolved disagreements, it built consensus", and you replied just "Agreed."
Then I said I'm just proposing we do that with moral questions too, and you started asking what color the unicorn's tail is. — Pfhorrest
While the others do the same, and in the mean time we just fight and yell at each other, and whoever stymies the other's progress and accomplishes a change in majority opinion most effectively was definitionally right all along, because majority opinion is all there is to being right?
Might makes right? That's your solution? — Pfhorrest
I don’t think it’s always possible for two parties who disagree to actually in practice reach agreement. One or more of them could be irrationally unpersuadable, either too closed-minded or too uncritical. I claim only that there is always an answer that all rational (open-minded yet critical) people would agree on. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.