More than a handful of initial premises are untestable in theory and, from a pragmatic point of view, lead to good-enough conclusions ("Did you eat today? Does it seem likely you'll eat tomorrow? Awesome.") that once we claw our way up to the point where reason is a luxury we can afford that we're more likely to see evidence that does not cohere with our moralities as obviously incoherent rather than an opportunity to, once again, engage in rationality and reshuffle absolutely everything that got us to where we are today.
(That was actually more of a callback joke with a bit of a barbed point than a direct command, for the record.)
This leads me back into the whole "translation" thing where some say that this or that language has an untranslatable word.
That strikes me as exceptionally unlikely given what I've seen language do. Maybe it takes two words, maybe it takes a sentence, maybe it takes a paragraph... but you can pretty much translate anything.
(Wittgenstein said that if a lion could speak, we could not understand him but if my cats are any indications lions would say such things as "FOOD!" and "leave me alone" and "I want a backrub"... all of which are translatable in theory.)
Which brings me around to the point that it's more than possible to make a crude facsimile of an argument for the benefit of lay peeps while, at the same time, improving their vocabulary for next time.
The metaphysics is that there are universal moral laws, categorical imperatives, or fully general moral principles that remain true independently of situational contexts.
I don't know how to get there from here. From here it just likes like there might be universal laws, categorical imperatives, and whatnot but we may also be getting one hell of a false positive and, jeez louise, if those things were real you'd think that more people would be able to write down what they are... so those things being a mirage we're running toward rather than an actual oasis would be a rational conclusion to reach as well.
I’m curious about your route to where you’ve reduced morality to choices.
I'm much closer to moral nihilism than not. I saw the interesting portion of the debate not being over the nature of the rules (if they existed) but in the whole "free will" thing.
I mean, if we don't have free will and we're just a fairly complicated bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other, then morality is phlogiston. It's ether. It's a mortar concept we invented to fill in gaps in our knowledge.
If, however, we can choose between X and Y, then that's where morality resides.
To answer the query, I got there by climbing (or crawling) up.
"Rationally" strikes me as the weak point here because (much like morality) it is a vector rather than a destination and, as such, two rational people can reach mutually exclusive (rational!) conclusions rationally.
Yes, yes. Metaphysics preceeds epistemology but we can only work with the latter and if the latter has no bearing on the former we're shit outta luck anyway.
If, however, we can get there from here then we can start hammering stuff out. Hammering stuff out can look like confusing "how stuff works" with "how we think stuff works" though.
As for my criticisms of your criticisms, it's because I share a handful of your inclinations and feel that you do the positions that you and I share a disservice when you argue for them poorly and defend them even more poorly.
If you wish to attack Obama for being an empty suit, or worse, for being indistinguishable from Dubya when it comes to the things that you care about, it makes more sense to attack him for being an empty suit or for being indistinguishable from Dubya. When you attack him for being a foreigner, I am left wondering if you'd be cool with him doing exactly what he's doing if he were called "Mike Huckabee".
(That's without getting into the "it feels like your goal is to irritate the hosts of the site rather than make a point worth addressing" thing that comes up from time to time.)
Here's what bugs me about certain types of name-calling:
They're body parts. (In this case, they're devices designed to interact with body parts.)
I am reminded of being in elementary school where the height of wit was to grab a friend and run up to some victim and Kid A would yell "Hi, right nut!" and Kid B would yell "Hi, left nut!" leaving the victim to deduce exactly what in the heck was going on.
Now that I think about it, wasn't the victim coming out ahead in that little exchange?
In any case, there are a number of taboos related to body parts and the interactions thereof. Invoking these taboos does a good job of pressing the taboo button on the part of the reader but does not do a particularly good job of transmitting *CONTENT*.
Let's say that your problem with Obama is that he told the military to defend the insurgents in Libya.
Is the word that is just as likely to be used to describe a guy who spills your beer at a campsite really the best you can do?
Because, from here, that tells me volumes about your vocabulary but little about Obama.
So you think he's a water bottle, do you?
Perhaps you could grab a friend and get some walkie-talkies and stand on opposite sides of the White House. "*crzzzt* Left Nut, over." "*crzzzt* Right Nut, over" "*crzzzt* we showed him!"
I think that Bill Maher is an excellent counter-argument to the trite assumption that libertarians are necessarily on the right.
Personally, I think you'd get more traction with "Feh, Maher's not a real libertarian!" than with "Maher is a Libertarian, Libertarians are on the right, QED!!!"
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
More than a handful of initial premises are untestable in theory and, from a pragmatic point of view, lead to good-enough conclusions ("Did you eat today? Does it seem likely you'll eat tomorrow? Awesome.") that once we claw our way up to the point where reason is a luxury we can afford that we're more likely to see evidence that does not cohere with our moralities as obviously incoherent rather than an opportunity to, once again, engage in rationality and reshuffle absolutely everything that got us to where we are today.
That was a horrible sentence.
"
(That was actually more of a callback joke with a bit of a barbed point than a direct command, for the record.)
This leads me back into the whole "translation" thing where some say that this or that language has an untranslatable word.
That strikes me as exceptionally unlikely given what I've seen language do. Maybe it takes two words, maybe it takes a sentence, maybe it takes a paragraph... but you can pretty much translate anything.
(Wittgenstein said that if a lion could speak, we could not understand him but if my cats are any indications lions would say such things as "FOOD!" and "leave me alone" and "I want a backrub"... all of which are translatable in theory.)
Which brings me around to the point that it's more than possible to make a crude facsimile of an argument for the benefit of lay peeps while, at the same time, improving their vocabulary for next time.
"
The metaphysics is that there are universal moral laws, categorical imperatives, or fully general moral principles that remain true independently of situational contexts.
I don't know how to get there from here. From here it just likes like there might be universal laws, categorical imperatives, and whatnot but we may also be getting one hell of a false positive and, jeez louise, if those things were real you'd think that more people would be able to write down what they are... so those things being a mirage we're running toward rather than an actual oasis would be a rational conclusion to reach as well.
"
I’m curious about your route to where you’ve reduced morality to choices.
I'm much closer to moral nihilism than not. I saw the interesting portion of the debate not being over the nature of the rules (if they existed) but in the whole "free will" thing.
I mean, if we don't have free will and we're just a fairly complicated bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other, then morality is phlogiston. It's ether. It's a mortar concept we invented to fill in gaps in our knowledge.
If, however, we can choose between X and Y, then that's where morality resides.
To answer the query, I got there by climbing (or crawling) up.
"
Were there too many big words in that argument?
Don't be a dick.
"
"Rationally" strikes me as the weak point here because (much like morality) it is a vector rather than a destination and, as such, two rational people can reach mutually exclusive (rational!) conclusions rationally.
"
"Reason".
You say that like it is metaphysics rather than epistemology.
"
Of all the things to be sorry for, that one would not have occurred to me.
"
Thank you.
"
I just confirmed on the web that I was right and you're wrong.
I'd post a link but... you know.
I'd rather talk about how you're wrong than actually demonstrate anything.
Because it's Saturday.
"
Yes, yes. Metaphysics preceeds epistemology but we can only work with the latter and if the latter has no bearing on the former we're shit outta luck anyway.
If, however, we can get there from here then we can start hammering stuff out. Hammering stuff out can look like confusing "how stuff works" with "how we think stuff works" though.
"
So... I should shut up?
"
You know, I keep posting links and people keep ignoring them.
https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2009/07/07/the-vector-a-post-theist-moral-framework/
As for my criticisms of your criticisms, it's because I share a handful of your inclinations and feel that you do the positions that you and I share a disservice when you argue for them poorly and defend them even more poorly.
If you wish to attack Obama for being an empty suit, or worse, for being indistinguishable from Dubya when it comes to the things that you care about, it makes more sense to attack him for being an empty suit or for being indistinguishable from Dubya. When you attack him for being a foreigner, I am left wondering if you'd be cool with him doing exactly what he's doing if he were called "Mike Huckabee".
(That's without getting into the "it feels like your goal is to irritate the hosts of the site rather than make a point worth addressing" thing that comes up from time to time.)
"
I don't believe. That doesn't mean that I don't think about it.
"
I was familiar with the song (we are a pro-Coulton household) but had not seen that particular video. Thank you!
"
When I imagine a person who is connected to Ultimate Truth and God, sometimes I imagine what this person might act like.
I don't end up with a set that usually matches with the set of your behaviors.
Is this gnosis on my part?
"
Here's what bugs me about certain types of name-calling:
They're body parts. (In this case, they're devices designed to interact with body parts.)
I am reminded of being in elementary school where the height of wit was to grab a friend and run up to some victim and Kid A would yell "Hi, right nut!" and Kid B would yell "Hi, left nut!" leaving the victim to deduce exactly what in the heck was going on.
Now that I think about it, wasn't the victim coming out ahead in that little exchange?
In any case, there are a number of taboos related to body parts and the interactions thereof. Invoking these taboos does a good job of pressing the taboo button on the part of the reader but does not do a particularly good job of transmitting *CONTENT*.
Let's say that your problem with Obama is that he told the military to defend the insurgents in Libya.
Is the word that is just as likely to be used to describe a guy who spills your beer at a campsite really the best you can do?
Because, from here, that tells me volumes about your vocabulary but little about Obama.
So you think he's a water bottle, do you?
Perhaps you could grab a friend and get some walkie-talkies and stand on opposite sides of the White House. "*crzzzt* Left Nut, over." "*crzzzt* Right Nut, over" "*crzzzt* we showed him!"
On “Muslims and PR: A response to comments”
some questions such as doctrinal ones can be addressed only by Muslims.
As someone who has opinions on Christian doctrine, I'd like to say "bullcrap".
On “Contra Tu Quoque, Or, Avoiding The Fourth Response”
Or, of course, the argument over physical requirements to be a firefighter.
Is it discriminatory to say that a firefighter has to demonstrate that he can carry a 200-pound sack of potatoes down a ladder? Sexist?
"
Sometimes you have two bigotries that are mutually incompatible.
Pick to fight against the one bigotry and the automatic assumption is that you're okay with the other.
"You're only fighting for free speech for Mohammed Political Cartoons because you're still upset that Piss Christ got federal funding!"
That sort of thing.
On “Muslims and PR: A response to comments”
I think that Bill Maher is an excellent counter-argument to the trite assumption that libertarians are necessarily on the right.
Personally, I think you'd get more traction with "Feh, Maher's not a real libertarian!" than with "Maher is a Libertarian, Libertarians are on the right, QED!!!"
On “Why We Disagree About Taxes, Entitlements, and Economic Theory in General”
Stealing from Peter to pay Paul always seems more sustainable to Paul than Peter.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
That's "Responsible Government".
On “Contra Tu Quoque, Or, Avoiding The Fourth Response”
How should people instead respond to posts that might offend them?
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Hey, BSK! Down here!
You seemed to mock "relativism" earlier.
Here is my main question: Exactly what should we not tolerate? Why?
And, of course, what is your basis for being able to make that judgment?