Is that purely because we believe we have the status of moral agents, and a duty to carry out acts we deem moral? Or is it because North Koreans also have the status of being moral agents, and that's why we have a duty to them?

All persons are moral agents, so both people in the West and North Koreans are moral agents. I would say that (not in all but) in some circumstances moral agents have a duty to help other people; and those people needing of help should also be trying to help themselves too.

The answer to those questions would clarify for me whether we are supposed to consider North Koreans members of the in-group or the out-group

In- and out- groups are relativistic and contextual. E.g., someone of another nation is in an out-group to your nation; someone not in your family is in the out-group to your family; etc.

There is not “The in-(or out-)group”.

If they are moral agents toward whom we might have a duty, that sounds like we ought to consider them in-group.

No, but they are in-group if you universalize it as “all humanity”. Then, e.g., aliens would be a part of the out-group.

But if they are out-group, why would we have any duty to liberate them?

Because we have a duty to properly respect—i.e., be just towards—other persons. This doesn’t negate the fact that we, in practicality, have to prioritize our own people over others.

But if they are out-group, why would we have any duty to liberate them?

This is straightforwardly a false dilemma. People in out-groups are still people; so they are moral agents.

When you've decided you don't understand the question, I'll happily rephrase it.

:lol: ???

Forgot to ask, why we should spend blood and treasure liberating members of the out-group. How is that putting in-group needs first?

It isn’t. The point is not to always prioritize the in-group over out-group; but we still have to do it oftentimes. E.g., every time I save a stranger I am putting myself, to some degree, at risk and thusly it is at the detriment of the family. I see your point though: when there are grave consequences of helping the out-group, then we shouldn’t. I’m fine with that. E.g., I first have a duty to take care of my kids and this conflicts with risking my life to save that stranger from the burning building.

I'm saying people don't vote for it.
…
If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.

People haven’t ever voted on when to go to war—that’s not how republics work I’m afraid.

A war of aggression, for me, is always immoral.

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? Sure. Is it immoral? Not at all. Explain to me my flaw in reasoning here, without pointing out the red herring that in WW2 the US didn’t join until they were attacked (or a more general statement outlining it for other countries and when they joined).

He is a sex offender, and not because he engages is consensual acts that some might find offensive.

Send me a link to the sex offense that he was charged with, or the reasonable evidence that he should have been convicted (of some sex crime).

A meritocracy guided by secular values may be your preference but others may hold to religious values as superior, that it is religious values that have elevated us above the savagery, cruelty, and viciousness of secularism.

And they, my friend, would be objectively wrong. I don’t care about people’s opinions—this theory is governed by facts.

Do you mean something like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

:smile:

One troubling example: the rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus versus the interest of the state and the country.

There are certainly tensions and dilemmas to be explored; but that’s how rights work. A right is absolute.

Most of the dilemma revolve, like abortion, around people not understanding how rights actually work. No, you are not allowed to violate someone’s right to life to uphold your own right to bodily autonomy—that’s not how rights work.

You do not know that we could take over North Korea without grave consequences. This points to a problem with ideological wish fulfillment.

I never claimed to the contrary—you sidestepped my hypothetical, as noted by underlining it.

Interesting example since Gandhi was opposed to the very thing you say is needed - power and domination

Red herring.

I agree that toleration should have its limits, but the problem remains as to what ought to be tolerated?

Fallacy of the heap. There are clear examples of what is a pond and what is a lake: I don’t have to give an exact line where one becomes the other. Stopping the Nazis is a clear example of what should be done, and stopping people from eating Vanilla ice cream is a clear example of what shouldn’t be done.

Send me a link to the sex offense that he was charged with, or the reasonable evidence that he should have been convicted (of some sex crime). — Bob Ross

Regarding the accusation of rape, the judge gave to the jury "the narrow, technical meaning of that term" under New York law as it existed at that time, which defined rape as forcible penetration with the penis, as Carroll had specifically alleged. The jury rejected her rape claim, but found Trump liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse than rape. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word. In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of "rape" is "substantially true". — Wikipedia - E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

I'm saying people don't vote for it.
…
If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.


People haven’t ever voted on when to go to war—that’s not how republics work I’m afraid. — Bob Ross

That's what I've been trying to tell you: democratic nations don't "take over" other countries to fix those other countries' morality. It would have to be done by either coercing or misleading the people: i.e., by undemocratic means. So, what superior values are you imposing on another non-democratic government?

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? — Bob Ross

Who attacked the Nazi regime just to improve its morals?
And why do you think shifting the subject in every exchange is going to convince anyone of your own moral rectitude?

I am open-minded — Bob Ross

I know I'm not the only one who chuckled when they read this.

Again, you seem to have missed the point. A meritocracy guided by secular values may be your preference but others may hold to religious values as superior, that it is religious values that have elevated us above the savagery, cruelty, and viciousness of secularism. — Fooloso4

Yeah, but others haven't got the Maxim gun. That's the unstated premise underlying Bob's fascist fantasy.

Thanks for the response, Bob.

It sounds like you don’t believe in personifying the State; and I would just briefly note that in a representative republic you have to—the government represents, to some sufficient extent, the people. You can’t separate any member of the government, or the government in totality, from the people in proper republics.

I’m aware that’s the theory of republicanism. But it cannot be shown to be the case in practice.

I suggest the opposite is the case: you cannot unify any member of government with any of the people it rules over. It’s impossible for someone to represent people she’s never met, for example, and the wants and needs of the people she has met shift to such an extent that to keep track of them all would be impossible. People are only nominally represented by politicians.

That’s incredibly immoral. That’s like saying that an individual should only secure their own power and advance their own interests as much as they can—what about caring about other people? What about moral law?

It is immoral. I’m not saying the state should do that, only that they cannot do otherwise.

I guess it depends on your own theory of state formation, whether it was voluntary or of conflict, because it outlines the nature of these institutions. Did everyone gather together to form the state, as with a social contract? Or did the state arise out of conquest and confiscation, erecting a mechanism for some men to rule over others?

This is so obviously wrong, though. You are saying, e.g., that an nation shouldn’t interfere with mass genocide in another nation. It’s nonsense.

That’s not what I was saying. Imperialism is the expansion of power and jurisdiction. One cannot give aid by establishing a permanent institution and ruling over the victims.

Vietnam tried this in Cambodia. The Vietnamese took out Pol Pot and disbanded the Khmer Rouge, which was good, but then it occupied the country for a decade, which was bad.

Imperialism suggests occupation and the expansion of power. Implying that this is an act to save victims is nonsense.

The reason I used those terms, is because it is true; and your terms do not accurately portray the point.

For example, india doesn’t have just a problem of a repressive government: their society, the legacy of castes, is still enforced by everyone at a societal level. The society itself still embodies the view that the untouchables are worthless scum—you can’t mask that with “it’s a repressive government”. — Bob Ross

The caste system was officially outlawed in 1950 but it still persists in certain parts of India. From what I understand, it is highly controversial in India. It is wrong to say that it persists everywhere in India.

That’s true; but wouldn’t you agree Talibanian Afghanistan is a prime example where it is warranted?

The Taliban is a wicked force and promotes wicked policies, but I wouldn't say that Afghan society is degenerate. There was pre-Taliban Afghanistan.

Send me a link to the sex offense that he was charged with, or the reasonable evidence that he should have been convicted (of some sex crime). — Bob Ross

We have Trump's admission that he grabs women by the pussy.

27th woman accuses Trump of sexual misconduct

On Tuesday, May 12, 2023, the Manhattan jury of nine men and three women found the former president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

And they, my friend, would be objectively wrong. I don’t care about people’s opinions—this theory is governed by facts. — Bob Ross

Please cite those facts. You like to throw around terms such as 'objectively'. I know you will not agree but values are not facts. The fact is, however, that the belief in equality comes from Christianity not secular sources.

Do you mean something like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

:smile: — Bob Ross

What does this mean? Do you think this stands as a reasoned argument?

In his recent book constitutional scholar Jeffery Rosen argues that the term 'the pursuit of happiness' as used by the Founders traces back before the philosophers of Liberalism to the classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Cicero. The pursuit of happiness is deliberative and public minded. It is not self interested but a matter of the 'common good' and 'general welfare'.

You have got it backwards. The right to the pursuit of happiness is not the right to do whatever you think will make you happy or even the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not impinge on the rights of other. It is not good because it is an individual's right. It is good because it is in pursuit of the good.

Most of the dilemma revolve, like abortion, around people not understanding how rights actually work. — Bob Ross

No. the fact is that the dilemma of abortion does not resolve. It is a stand off of conflicting rights.

You do not know that we could take over North Korea without grave consequences. This points to a problem with ideological wish fulfillment.

I never claimed to the contrary—you sidestepped my hypothetical — Bob Ross

Your hypothetical? Do you mean "without grave consequences"? The actions taken by one nation against another should not be based on improbable hypotheticals.

I agree that toleration should have its limits, but the problem remains as to what ought to be tolerated?

Fallacy of the heap. — Bob Ross

Once again you make my point. When dealing with the question of what should and should not be tolerated the problem lies with what is between the extremes. Do you think that real world problems are like the difference between stopping the Nazis and stopping people from eating vanilla ice cream?

His bivalent extremism puts me in the position of appearing to defend religious values over secular values. He has much more in common with religious extremists than he is aware of.

To pivot a little, I would say you are underestimating the power of European/American banking and it's allies.
America's debt is just a way of fleecing the American labour and business sectors to finance it's bankers and elites. — Swanty

And pay for that Superpower military, which is crucial. That now the debt service cost more than the whole defense budget is telling. And there's absolutely no reason why the country won't continue to use it's credit card from USD's global role.

They are a different form of nationalism. — Bob Ross

But still part of nationalism. And this is why people will get upset of a troll-like thread called "in support of Western supremacy, Nationalism and Imperialism". Perhaps a similar thread like "in support of of Marxism-Leninism, the good aspects of the Marxist ideology" would be for someone reasonable, but for others it would be deliberate trolling. Yet someone could post a thread like that and tell us of all the positive aspects of the ideology, and there are in PF many who consider themselves Marxists. Where he (or she) would go astray is to deny the negative sides of this totalitarian ideology and go for the insanely ludicrous idea of "if it weren't for Stalin". Or Mao, or Pol Pot. Luckily (in my view) the Marxists here do understand the complexity and the perils of totalitarianism and I respect that.

So no, Bob, you simply cannot bypass the ugly aspects of ultranationalism and jingoism as "a different form of nationalism" and then contnue talk about it positively. Yes, I've read your OP, you state in the end that:

I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical), like fascism, but it seems wrong to go to the opposite extreme and deny any nationalism and imperialism whatsoever. — Bob Ross

Well, a lot of of Marxists won't deny the millions that Marxism-Leninism killed, but the argue (perhaps like you) that the negative aspects aren't intrinsic to the ideology. That it's just, well, as you say when it goes too radical. But in that case, the whole ideology is against democracy, portrays other human beings as the enemy and justifies a violent revolution to be justified, as least as the 19th Century ideas went.

Hence similarly you saying that it's nationalism "just gone wrong" and admit it has negative aspects, or as you said, that ultranationalism is "something different", I don't buy that. You have to define just what you find to be positive and what ought to be excluded because you do have such negative aspects in the term of nationalism.

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? Sure. — Bob Ross

Except the US didn't go to war to stop the Holocaust.

The brilliant mr A. Hitler in his enormous wisdom declared war on the United States after Imperial Japan attacked the US. The holocaust was something that was exposed only after the war was fought in Germany and Poland, even if hints of the final solution were to be seen earlier.

Have the historical facts straight, Bob.

Except the US didn't go to war to stop the Holocaust.
…
Have the historical facts straight, Bob.

I never claimed to the contrary: I even predicted this point in my response! With all due respect, please take your time in reading my responses; because we are both wasting our time if either or both of us are skimming each other’s posts and addressing irrelevant or already addressed points. I presented you with a counter example to your own, and addressed this already:

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? Sure. Is it immoral? Not at all. Explain to me my flaw in reasoning here, without pointing out the red herring that in WW2 the US didn’t join until they were attacked (or a more general statement outlining it for other countries and when they joined).

And this is why people will get upset of a troll-like thread called "in support of Western supremacy, Nationalism and Imperialism".

There’s no trolling intended: there are good forms of nationalism, imperialism, and supremacy. Liberals just get butt-hurt when people use the proper terminology, because they conflate it with the bad forms.

Perhaps a similar thread like "in support of of Marxism-Leninism, the good aspects of the Marxist ideology" would be for someone reasonable, but for others it would be deliberate trolling

That title would, either, suggest trolling. Trolling is when you are purposefully messing with people: you seem to think it is when someone makes a controversial statement. I have no problem with someone creating a thread titled “in support of Maoism”, even though I disagree, as long as they are trying to have a productive and legitimate conversation about it—that’s the whole point of freedom of speech.

So no, Bob, you simply cannot bypass the ugly aspects of ultranationalism and jingoism as "a different form of nationalism" and then contnue talk about it positively.

This is an equivocation. If I say I like gala apples, then it is not valid to critique honey crisp apples as a retort: you cannot say, as you analogously are now, that I like all apples because I like gala apples. This is nonsense.

. But in that case, the whole ideology is against democracy, portrays other human beings as the enemy and justifies a violent revolution to be justified, as least as the 19th Century ideas went.

What??? Patriotism is not anti-democratic. I don’t know why you would suggest all forms of nationalism, like Patriotism, are against democracy.

We have Trump's admission that he grabs women by the pussy.

This is what he said:

when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy

That is not a sex crime to grab a woman “by the pussy” if she let’s you do it.

Either way, I see your point and recant my statement:

On Tuesday, May 12, 2023, the Manhattan jury of nine men and three women found the former president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

He was also, upon reading in to it, found guilty of rape under the common definition but not charged because the definition of rape in that state required the unconsensual penetration to be with a penis and not fingers. So, yeah, Trump definition is a sex offender—good point Foolos4.

Please cite those facts. You like to throw around terms such as 'objectively'. I know you will not agree but values are not facts. The fact is, however, that the belief in equality comes from Christianity not secular sources.

Traditionally, yes, it comes from Christianity. I am not sure how deep we want to get into this, but I am a neo-Aristotelian; so I believe that the chief good is to be a eudaimon because this is what is required to realize and preserve the objective, internal goods to mindhood; and this is just to say that one must be virtuous, in the pre-modern sense, as it relates to the natural functions of the mind. One of those virtues, and the highest of them, is Justice. To be just is to respect a thing for what it deserves relative to what it is (or does); and, so, persons—i.e., beings with a free and rational will—cannot be treated as a mere means but also simultaneously an end-in-themselves. This is what rights are grounded in, and this is also true for Christianity; insofar as it borrows heavily from Aristotle’s ethics.

Objective goods are internal goods, in that Aristotelian sense. I will leave you, for now, with an easy example: the good farmer. The fact that a farmer is good at farming is not hypothetical: it is not relative to the beliefs or desires you have about it, nor that I have about it. This is a form of objective goodness: if you are really a moral anti-realist, then you must deny that there is such a thing as a good farmer, or deny that this sort of objective goodness has any relevance to morality.

What does this mean? Do you think this stands as a reasoned argument?

I was just affirming your question.

In his recent book constitutional scholar Jeffery Rosen argues that the term 'the pursuit of happiness' as used by the Founders traces back before the philosophers of Liberalism to the classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Cicero. The pursuit of happiness is deliberative and public minded. It is not self interested but a matter of the 'common good' and 'general welfare'.

Absolutely; and this goes back to the Aristotelian idea that the state should be trying to facilitate the Human Good. ‘Happiness’ should really be translated here as ‘eudaimonia’.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not the right to do whatever you think will make you happy or even the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not impinge on the rights of other

Oh, I see. That’s not what it means to people in America nor how it is taught. ‘Happiness’ is used in the modern, non-Aristotelian sense now: you follow your own conception of the good—not some objective good. You are right, though, to point out that the founding father’s were entrenched, because of their predominant Christian beliefs, in Aristotelian thought.

No, if we only had to the right to be a eudaimon, then we would not have the right, e.g., to eat McDonald’s everyday—that’s not how Aristotle envisioned it.

No. the fact is that the dilemma of abortion does not resolve. It is a stand off of conflicting rights.

I can tell you that is certainly not the case; although, like I said, people think that because they don’t understand how normative ethics works. You cannot throw someone in front of a train, thereby killing them, to save five people on the tracks: there is not conflict of rights here. That’s not how it works.

Your hypothetical? Do you mean "without grave consequences"? The actions taken by one nation against another should not be based on improbable hypotheticals.

Correct. I was never denying this. The OP is trying to tease out that there actually are forms of these views which are permissible, per se.

Do you think that real world problems are like the difference between stopping the Nazis and stopping people from eating vanilla ice cream?

No, but my point is that we don’t have to have an exact formula of what to tolerate to agree that a nation should step in to stop the Nazis. That’s obviously bad enough to go to war over it—no?

The caste system was officially outlawed in 1950 but it still persists in certain parts of India. From what I understand, it is highly controversial in India. It is wrong to say that it persists everywhere in India.

There is overwhelming evidence that it is upheld in the vast majority of their society. There are tons of crimes reports, and tons not reported, that never get investigated because the police there do not care at all.

The Taliban is a wicked force and promotes wicked policies, but I wouldn't say that Afghan society is degenerate. There was pre-Taliban Afghanistan.

Perhaps: I would have to look into it. If it was like Iran, then it was definitely degenerate. However, this sidesteps my point: I was talking about specifically Talibanian rule.

I suggest the opposite is the case: you cannot unify any member of government with any of the people it rules over. It’s impossible for someone to represent people she’s never met, for example, and the wants and needs of the people she has met shift to such an extent that to keep track of them all would be impossible. People are only nominally represented by politicians.

Well, it’s about the values that she would profess (and hopefully stick to) which people would vote her in for: that’s the connect between them that you seem to be missing.

I’m not saying the state should do that, only that they cannot do otherwise.

To a certain extent I agree, because I do believe State’s slowly becoming tyrannical over time; so I see your point there. However, that’s one of the main reasons we have guns…..

Look, Jefferson was no dummy: he explicitly stated that a rebellion from time-to-time in a republic is as necessary and good as a storm for the earth’s ecosystem:

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

- Jefferson to Madison, January 30, 1787

That’s my boy, Jeff.

Imperialism is the expansion of power and jurisdiction. One cannot give aid by establishing a permanent institution and ruling over the victims.

Imperialism is “a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force”. I am just saying that, in giving aid, influencing them into the same values as the West isn’t a bad idea. Is that not Imperialistic to you?

Imperialism suggests occupation and the expansion of power. Implying that this is an act to save victims is nonsense.

You don’t think a US version of Iran would be better? I think so.

:heart:

That's what I've been trying to tell you: democratic nations don't "take over" other countries to fix those other countries' morality

No, no, no. You missed the point: democratic nations don’t go to war at all based off of a vote—that’s not how it works. You are acting like a democratic nation only goes to war if we vote to.

This opens up the discussion to the question: “what reasons can a democratic nation go to war, which is despite whatever their citizens think?”. I am tacking on one more than you: if another country is doing something really bad—like genocide. So, why do you think otherwise? You can’t say it’s because people wouldn’t vote for it….

Who attacked the Nazi regime just to improve its morals?
And why do you think shifting the subject in every exchange is going to convince anyone of your own moral rectitude?

I didn’t shift the discussion. Here’s what I said:

A war of aggression, for me, is always immoral.

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? Sure. Is it immoral? Not at all.

You said that a war of aggression is always immoral; so I was asking if you think that a war to stop genocide is then immoral? That’s the logical implication of what you said, and I want to see if you are willing to bite that bullet.

True, and I recanted that claim to @Fooloso4: Trump is definitely a sex offender. There's too much evidence to support this for me to overlook.

There is no actual objective wrong, only conventional wrongs, yes

Then, you have to deny that there is such a thing as a bad farmer.

Usefull for what, to be able to declare war?

Morality is useful for knowing what the right thing to do or not do is.

It's neither totally realist nor anti-realist I think. Morals are very real in that they exist as conventions for people to follow within certain groups, and are therefor not merely subjective expressions or choices of individuals... but they are also not the things you go looking for and can find as objective facts in the world. We create them over time.

Ok, so it sounds like your view is a form of moral anti-realism; because you are denying that moral judgments express something objective; instead, they are inter-subjective. This is just as meaningless to me as if it were straightforwardly subjective: why should anyone care what some group of people think? It literally doesn’t matter, because you are denying that there is anything that actually matters.

If you are suggesting that Western culture (whatever that may be) is better in EVERY single way that matters I would want to see how you are calculating this?

Because it is the only set of values that separates church from state; gives people as many equal liberties as possible; has the right to bear arms; and is merit-based (or at least used to be). Any society which is missing some of things is not as good (I would say). Maybe we can disagree on the 2nd amendment; but the others seem obviously better than any alternatives.

The best parts, ironically, of eastern countries are the westernized aspects of it—in terms of what really matters politically. Sure, the food may be way better; people may live more healthy lifestyles; etc. But if they don’t have basic rights than that doesn’t really matter—does it?

One such example would be how well other countries around the world have managed to separate religion from state (China and Japan had to create a concept for Religion to talk about monotheistic traditions in the late 19th century)

I don’t know enough about Japan to comment; but China, really? China sends people with religious beliefs to concentration camps….

In Australia the culture has survived in spite of the attempts of erasing it during colonization.

What’s survived? I didn’t follow.

The difficulty is in showing how we can evaluate this in any objective manner.

I am viewing it through an Aristotelian lens, ultimately.

I created a thread sometime ago regarding the premise of 'better languages' and it was met with equal hostility. Some people are just not willing to talk about such ideas.

:up:

I do think European Culture is probably better than US Culture simply because it is not anywhere near as homogenous as US culture. European culture is a patchwork of various traditions and ideas that have rubbed up against each other, and contended with each other (often violently), for millennia.

Interesting, why would diversity make a culture better? I would imagine that a society which is homogeneous and in alignment with the Human Good is the best—not one which has various opinions on what the Human Good is, nor whether to follow it.

The biggest issue is defining what is meant by Western Culture and whether or not the term is at all useful.

True. I am talking about the core western ideas; like democracy, liberties, rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms (for the US at least—Britain, e.g., can take that L on this one), tolerance, etc.

Is supremacy, nationalism and imperialism necessarily 'bad'. I think not.

I have a feeling you are the only one that is going to agree with me on that, lol.

That is not a sex crime to grab a woman “by the pussy” if she let’s you do it. — Bob Ross

Come on Bob. I think you know better! Not all women let "a star" do it. And to assume ahead of time that they will is a rapist mentality. But I see that you do go on to admit he is a rapist.

Traditionally, yes, it comes from Christianity. I am not sure how deep we want to get into this — Bob Ross

We need not go so deep to see that an evaluation of religious versus secular values should not ignore beliefs, opinions, and values, that religious and secular values are not wholly separate and distinct, and that without specific examples to evaluate it is a fruitless argument'.

The fact that a farmer is good at farming is not hypothetical: it is not relative to the beliefs or desires you have about it, nor that I have about it. This is a form of objective goodness — Bob Ross

If good at farming means producing an abundance of crops then we have one measure by which we might say that someone is a good farmer. But what if he uses an excessive amount to fertilizers and pesticides produce his crop? Is he a good farmer if he disregards the environmental impact? Mono-culture farming may be successful in the short term but disastrous long term. Corporate industrial "factory farms" are very productive but they are not good stewards of the land or good neighbors. Independent farmers cannot compete. Consumers have less choice.

No. the fact is that the dilemma of abortion does not resolve. It is a stand off of conflicting rights.

I can tell you that is certainly not the case; although, like I said, people think that because they don’t understand how normative ethics works. — Bob Ross

Rather than looking to ethical theory we need to look at what is actually going on. And it is not as if there is no dispute on this between those who do understand normative ethics, unless you mean that to understand it is to agree with you.

No, but my point is that we don’t have to have an exact formula of what to tolerate to agree that a nation should step in to stop the Nazis. — Bob Ross

We might agree that there are cases where we should step in, but this ignores the larger question of when we should step in. Should we step in to stop the Russians or the Israelis or Hamas?

True, and I recanted that claim to Fooloso4: Trump is definitely a sex offender. There's too much evidence to support this for me to overlook. — Bob Ross

Sorry. I missed your change of mind.

To be fair, I responded to Foolos4 right before I sent that to you (: So there is no possible way you would have seen that. The bottom-line is that Trump has done sexually immoral things, for sure. I didn't realize he was actually convicted in court, and got off of a rape charge on a technicality. So that's a fair point Foolos4 was making there.

To be honest, though, I would still vote for Trump over Kamala knowing that. Of course, I do not intent to condone that behavior; but every election is like picking the lesser of the two evils ):

I really wish a philosopher would run for office.

Come on Bob. I think you know better! Not all women let "a star" do it. And to assume ahead of time that they will is a rapist mentality. But I see that you do go on to admit he is a rapist.

I was just noting that what he said was not an admission that he rapes women. I am not saying he hasn’t done, considering the evidence you demonstrated. I think this is a mute point to debate now, since I agree with you on him being a sex offender.

If good at farming means producing an abundance of crops

You missed the point: if you are a moral anti-realist, then you can’t say there is such a thing as being actually better or worse at farming.

Rather than looking to ethical theory we need to look at what is actually going on.

The circumstances can inform our ethical decisions, but there’s more to it than that: you can’t purely empirically determine what is right and wrong.

And it is not as if there is no dispute on this between those who do understand normative ethics, unless you mean that to understand it is to agree with you

On the point I was making, there isn’t much dispute. It is uncontroversially true, for the vast majority of ethicists, that politics should be governed by ethics (ultimately). Ethics is about right and wrong behavior afterall.

We might agree that there are cases where we should step in, but this ignores the larger question of when we should step in. Should we step in to stop the Russians or the Israelis or Hamas?

I agree, but I am trying to take this one step at a time here. You are denying that we should evaluate politics based off of ethics; so we have to start there first.

I didn't realize he was actually convicted in court, and got off of a rape charge on a technicality. — Bob Ross

Note - it was a civil, not a criminal, court. He wasn't found legally guilty, he was found liable and had to pay money.

I was just noting that what he said was not an admission that he rapes women. — Bob Ross

He might not see it that way. He may believe he is so privileged as to do whatever he wants or so delusional that he thinks all women will welcome him grabbing them by the pussy, but bragging about doing this is an admission that he rapes women.

You missed the point: if you are a moral anti-realist, then you can’t say there is such a thing as being actually better or worse at farming. — Bob Ross

I am not bound by adherence to some particular moral theory. That is your thing. What you said is:

The fact that a farmer is good at farming is not hypothetical: it is not relative to the beliefs or desires you have about it, nor that I have about it. This is a form of objective goodness — Bob Ross

but when I give examples of why the claim about being good at farming is problematic, you appeal to a hypothetical, moral anti-realism.

I am not denying that one can be a better or worse farmer, but rather that without saying what it means to be better or worse at farming the point is empty. If you are going to appeal to a fact then you can't ignore the facts that determine whether or not farmer is a good farmer.

Rather than looking to ethical theory we need to look at what is actually going on.

The circumstances can inform our ethical decisions, but there’s more to it than that: you can’t purely empirically determine what is right and wrong. — Bob Ross

The question was whether the issue of abortion can be resolved. An appeal to normative ethics has not resolved it. That can be empirically determined.

On the point I was making, there isn’t much dispute. It is uncontroversially true, for the vast majority of ethicists, that politics should be governed by ethics (ultimately). Ethics is about right and wrong behavior afterall. — Bob Ross

An appeal to ethics gets us nowhere on this issue. Of course it is an ethical issue, but ethicists continue to argue the issue without resolution. The issue of abortion is very much in dispute between ethicists.

The issue cannot be resolved by an appeal to ethics over politics. First, respecting rights is a matter of ethics. Second, whether or not politics should be governed by ethics, the fact is, it is not. That is the political reality. We must deal with things as the are, not in terms of abstract theoretical ideals.