Are you saying that social behavior has nothing to do with the mental or that cultural attitudes have no actuality? — Janus

Definitely "cultural attitude" is only a very loose manner of speaking. Cultures don't literally have attitudes. Attitudes are mental phenomena, and only invidividuals have minds. Cultures do not.

Social behavior has something to do with mental stuff in that it can both reflect and influence mental stuff. We can't identify it with mental stuff if we want to speak at all precisely, though.

Let's say that allowing murder, rape, etc. leads to the extinction of humans.

Okay, now what? How do we get from that fact to anything you're attempting to claim re objectivity, etc.?

Inter-subjectively shared attitudes to murder, rape etc. are not merely a matter of 'popular opinion', they are matters of life and death for communities and the individuals who comprise them. — Janus

What is that supposed to be a response to? It doesn't seem to be an answer or comment to any question I just asked you or any comment I just made in response to stuff you'd just said.

No, I'm saying that is what morality is as a social phenomenon; it obviously is that. — Janus

Saying that something is a social phenomenon would exclude meaning, preference, etc. Societies don't have minds, individuals do.

Or to put it another way, say that we have 100 people. 98 say "You should do x."

Well, so what? How does the fact that 98% of people say that make it right? And isn't the claim that that makes something right known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. 'Inter-subjectivity' obviously refers to agreement or disagreement between subjects. — Janus

Different people use that term in different ways. If you simply mean agreement that's fine.

How in the world does agreement amout to objectivity?

There is no objectivity in human discourse beyond our ability to inter-subjectively agree that something is the case. What else could objectivity consist in? — Janus

How many times did I ask you to explain just what "intersubjectivity" amounts to in your usage? You've never done so.

A community is obviously not an "extramental world" ( whatever that could even be!) — Janus

If you don't buy that there's an extramental world, or you don't know what one would be, you have no business arguing that anything is objective.

yet there are obviously objective facts about whether it is healthy. thrives and so on. — Janus

An objective fact is a fact that obtains extramentally.

There are extramental facts about bodies, the states that bodies are in, etc., but as I've noted many times, if we're using a term that has a normative connotation to it (for example, "healthy" as a normative) then there's nothing objective about that. There are no shoulds or preferences in the extramental world. There only is what IS.

And you can't get anywhere near morality if you avoid normatives.

There is obviously an objective 'what is the case' when it comes to what is good for community, — Janus

There obviously isn't, rather, because there's nothing at all in the vein of a "good" assessment in the extramental world. The extramental world simply is. It has no preference for one way it can be over another way it can be. The extramental world couldn't care less if humans survive or not, if they have continuing communities in whatever state. Humans care about that, and a human caring about something is subjective, not objective.

It would be absurd to claim that these acts could be generally approved — Janus

If we're talking about people approving something, we're surely not talking about something objective.

You do understand that wrong-to-you and wrong are two different things, that murder-to-you is not the same as murder, yes? And again you confirm that to you, and presumably to your fellow relativists,murder is not wrong! — tim wood

Two different things in that some people believe an absurd fiction that there can be a "wrong" that's not wrong to someone. But that's strictly false. Wrong is always to someone. That's what it is.

If you're saying that we're not making claims about an ignorant myth, sure. Why would we be talking about something that's strictly rooted in ignorance? How about we don't forward ignorant myths and we instead deal with what wrong really is? Dealing with what wrong really is, we're not at all saying that murder isn't wrong.

I'm not going to insist that you're using "wrong" in an ignorant way every time you say that term. I'm going to assume that you're capable of learning and not saying ignorant things.

Is murder wrong? — tim wood

Yes.

Of course, that answer isn't context-independent, because it's incoherent to ask it context-independently. The relevant context is an individual's opinion. That's my opinion.

I understand that you're wrong. — NKBJ

Hard to do when you don't even understand what I'm claiming. Every response of yours has been the presentation of a different straw man.

Does your answer mean that the murder that murderers do is wrong? — tim wood

Yes. I'm sure I told you this way back in the thread. Murder is wrong in my view. I'm morally against murdering people.

And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are.

Great! What wrong does the murderer do, by your lights? — tim wood

Murder.

As I just said, "It kind of sucks that the extent of the discussions I have around here are, "Try to get someone to understand what I'm even claiming so that they don't just keep forwarding straw men." It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something. "

Anyway, on to the latest straw man:

Here:

You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
— NKBJ

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it. — Terrapin Station


It would be nice if you could stop contradicting yourself. But then you couldn't make your argument, so I guess I understand why you feel compelled to do so. — NKBJ

In other words, who is to say that "about WW2 isn't about the moon" to someone? You might not agree that they'd be about the same thing, but someone else might have a different view.

All I'm doing here is trying to get you to understand what I'm even claiming. That would be easier if you had any interest in trying to understand it rather than just wanting to argue against it.

You want it both ways, Terrapin. But it doesn't work that way. You can't both say that an interpretation is about something and then say it doesn't have to be about that thing. — NKBJ

Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"?

What I said was that what it is to be about x is for someone to think of it that way. Aboutness is a way of thinking about things.

It kind of sucks that the extent of the discussions I have around here are, "Try to get someone to understand what I'm even claiming so that they don't just keep forwarding straw men." It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something.

You said " they deny that the murderer does wrong"

I don't, and no one else around here does, either. No one said anything like that.

" nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves"

Sure, since no moral stance is "wrong in itself," and yes, that's a nonsensical idea. That is NOT the same thing as "denying that the murderer does wrong."

You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2. — NKBJ

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it.

My point is, or at least my question: does a realisation of the absurd not constantly dampen our instinct to feel? Our thoughts inform our feelings and if our thoughts negate the inclination towards meaning then what is the result? Apathy. — Edward

That Camusian sense of "absurd" doesn't do anything for me. I never felt any drive or inclination to see meaning or value as something objective. So the fact that it's subjective doesn't suggest any problem to me.

But why do you think you weren't satisfied with initial answers? — Edward

Well, either there were no answers to be had, or they seemed arbitrary and as if people were just accepting things for no good reason.

My off-the-cuff reaction to that is, "If you're not feeling it any longer, why do it? Take a break for awhile." But maybe there's a good reason to keep doing something even though your heart is no longer in it?

Well, then you DO think that interpretations are bound to the actual words on the page. — NKBJ

Interpretations are about something other than the interpretation, something objective (usually, at least), sure.

That doesn't mean that interpretations are objective, or that there's any content restriction on them, of course.

I don't know why people get so confused re aboutness.

A book about the moon isn't the moon.

A film about vampires isn't a vampire.

Etc.

If x is about y, that doesn't make x have the property of yness.

No one lives like this though (or at least very few). You're mixing theoretical philosophical debate with practical social existence. Everyone does agree that, for society, we should not murder. No one debates this in government. — Edward

That's not even the problem. The problem is something I've explained before:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/264275

I guess, if this was condensed into a single question:

How does one reconcile being human and emotional with being in a relative and free world, while feeling authentic and self-realised? — Edward

I still don't really understand this, even with the condensed question. Maybe if you were to give a more concrete example of a dilemma that's related to this?

who have made it explicitly clear that while they, personally, are not inclined to murder you, still though they deny that the murderer does wrong. — tim wood

No they do not deny that. Why do you keep repeating this? I've asked why you keep repeating it already, and you said that you do not keep repeating it. But here you are, saying it again.

So, when we say that an object traveling at c must have "0 length," because of the equation we use to calculate length contractions (the Lorentz factor), I think that we must be going wrong somewhere with our theories, because it's incoherent to have an existent with 0 length.

And then I wonder to what extent we really know that the Lorentz factor gives accurate answers for anything in the first place. But unfortunately I don't know enough about how we supposedly know this to critique the methodology. I'd have to research that.

Probably one of the main initial impetuses for me, when I was a kid, was people stating normatives that I didn't agree with. "You have to do this," "You can't do that," "You have to do that in this way," etc. I'd ask "Why" and I didn't believe that I was receiving good answers to "Why?"

It's the difference between being called "good" and being so, and we can most certainly be mistaken in that regard. — creativesoul

Could you give an example and explain how we'd be mistaken?

For example, maybe you'd want to say that someone saying "It's morally permissible to rape others" would be mistaken and would be getting something incorrect, where you're not just saying that you feel differently than they do. So could you explain how that would be the case? (Or you can use another example to explain if you prefer--it doesn't matter to me, I was just suggesting one.)

Like everyone else in the world I've given this some thought. For the most part, what we consider right and wrong is considered wrong for a reason. Many moral questions are surrounding the topic of sex, incest is considered immoral due to it corrupting the gene pool and homosexual relations are often deemed undesirable due to its inability to produce offspring, much like most Christian views on pornography, essentially any discharge not for the purpose of reproduction is considered wrong or a sin. Many other moral questions go fairly without saying such as not murdering your fellow man and not stealing. The way I see it, morality is a concept that exists to protect humanity from itself. Without morality and a sense of right and wrong, the human race would collapse in a matter of days. — nsmith

At which point we ask, "Why is it (morally) wrong to corrupt the gene pool?" or "Why is it (morally) wrong to not have offspring?" etc.

Maybe people would also have answers to that, and then we'd ask "Why is it (morally) wrong to <whatever the reason was>?"

Before too long, they'd have to say, "Duh, it just is!" or "Duh, I just feel that way" or "Duh, it's just what I desire versus alternatives" or something like that.

All rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are first adopted via language acquisition. — creativesoul

So little Joey's parents tell him that it's wrong to hit little Stevie just because Stevie won't give Joey a toy when Joey demands it. If Joey doesn't agree, so that he feels it's wrong to hit Stevie, just how does that amount to a moral stance for Joey?

Well, you haven't said why that is, not that I'm particularly interested. — S

Re only being interested in presuppositions, it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of doing philosophy that we simply accept an assumption, and especially that we're only interested in something if we do that.

"Either we accept this assumption without question, or it's irrelevant, or I'm not interested."

Ohhhhhhkay. :razz:

The word that I find to be the most questionable is "indissociated," "Block" is a bit odd there, too.

"They are simply given in an unseparated whole" would be a much more conventional way to say the same thing.

If someone thinks that blacks are less likely to work hard, say, and they think that's due to genetic factors, so that the person in question is a racist, then if that person refrains from hiring a black candidate for a job, what would be our basis for saying that they're acting out of a fear or phobia rather than just ignorance?

It's stupid, by the way, because it's a "pledge" propositional attitude, where the pledge is being offered if either a or b, but where b is supposedly irrelevant.

I think the "presupposed" part is stupid, too, by the way, but not as stupid as the "irrelevant" part, which is why I emphasized that.

I also think that saying "presupposed or irrelevant" in this context is stupid is the "irrelevant" part was irrelevant.

You're saying you have to interpret it that way because they're specifying western values?

Why state it then? (The kangaroo/irrelevant part)

Or, in other words : How can the outside logically be considered possible when your subjective viewpoint always comes first and is technically subjectively created? What gives the possibility of the outside world possibly being real valid credibility? — gsky1

In order for "the outside" to not be possible, it has to be impossible, and traditionally, impossibility has amounted to the notion that there's something logically contradictory about it--something that amounts to unequivocally asserting both P and not-P. Normally we require someone to make the contradiction explicit in order to say that something is contradictory/impossible.