Yes. In the same way that the eradication of poverty and inequity could be considered right. These issues are not a result of subjectivism but the social and political environment in which these situations arose. Similar to the problems with the value judgements you mentioned is the way in which these views at the time were seen to be grounded in objectivity - the belief in the existence of objective morality can be just as, if not more, destructive when compared with subjective morality.

Whence are the objective standards of morality you are referring to? There is no objective principle of morality, to improvise one for the sake of objective morality would create many more problems than any subjective valuation.

Wait are you ChatGPT?

I haven't read those comics, but I will say that anyone who reserves moral value strictly to humans is an idiot. Consider some alien species of equal intelligence and similar faculties to feel pain coming to visit us. It would be just as wrong to torture them as to torture humans, other concerns aside (like if there was some reason for torture such as gaining vital information). If some species here on Earth were to develop similar faculties to us, it would be wrong to deem them of lower ethical value just because they do not have the same biology as us. This is wrong for exactly the same reason that racism is wrong. It is not our biology that defines us, but our faculties. I have a problem with the term "humanism" for this reason, though seeing as there aren't currently any comparable species to us yet, it's not really an issue for now. In my opinion this means a good ethical theory must find something other than biology to base its ethical value on. For me the most viable option is sentience, though others look to the experience of pain and pleasure. Theists need to contort themselves around the musings of ancient books written and rewritten over time by many different people of questionable intelligence, motives and sanity, but I imagine they may run into trouble because the various authors didn't have the forethought to consider non-humans similar to humans in intelligence, because sci-fi hadn't been invented.

Thanks, i didn't really expect an answer.

Yeah, figured it was a non-sequitur, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't missing anything.

The answer to your question is obviously yes, indeterminism does not imply free will. Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is a fool.

Askphilosophy is a draconian mess of a subreddit, even moreso than here (and that's saying something!). Most posts with more than a few upvotes end up getting locked so only flaired users can post. In practice this shuts down debate. You'll get the same responses listing some views from the most famous classical and "modern" (i.e. before the 1950s) philosophers. As a result you'll get little to no analytic philosophy, as it has been understood post WW2.

All non-objective ethics positions have these sorts of problems. Typically relativism (theories where ethics is in some sense relative to a "group" of people) is favoured over outright individual subjectivism, but it's still fundamentally flawed. With all of these sorts of views it's hard to eliminate a "Hitler was right" type of statement. Jumps and backflips are performed, but I have never found any convincing. I will never be willing to concede any "Hitler was right" type of statement, so for me an acceptable ethical theory must satisfy some form of objectivity.

Its not objectively wrong, its only subjectively wrong due to moral consensus of the day.

Just like when people used to own slaves, have human ritual sacrifice, burn witches, not letting women vote, etc.

Just like when atheism is considered wrong by the majority a few hundred years ago.

Just like when Galileo were imprisoned for his teaching about the solar system.

A lot of terrible things used to be subjectively right due to consensus, a lot of good things used to be subjectively wrong due to consensus as well, they gradually change over time.

Thus blowing up earth as a philosophy is only wrong due to subjective consensus, it could become right one day to many people, depends on the amount of suffering that will either increase or decrease in the future.

I don't entirely agree. It has often been the relatively young to drive social change. Emmiline Pankhurst formed the Women's Social and Political Union, later known as the Suffragettes, at age 47, with her daughters Adela (23), Christabel (23) and Sylvia (21). Gandhi starting civil rights campaigning at age 23. Martin Luther King led the Montgomery boycott at age 26. Older people are more likely to have conservative views. This may be due to ageing causing changing views, or generational differences (being brought up in times when homosexuality and abortion were illegal, and racist attitudes were widely accepted); scientists are still trying to pick those apart. But in both cases it is the young who are more likely to want to shift the status quo forward in the direction it has been travelling rather backwards to where it once was at some past point. In democratic countries, society is changed by voting and campaigning. A rational and ethical agent should vote and campaign based on their moral values and their understanding of the world. So moral values, especially about society, will and should always play a central role in people's political lives. Insisting that a person, young or old, stop spending time on the morality of society, is to insist they remove themselves from democracy.

Pretty cool

I haven't got any readings for you, sorry, but I can say that valuing one's time is fundamental to much of mainstream economics. Specifically, in many models an agents time is split up into working vs. non-working (leisure), and you assume an agent desires both leisure time and money to purchase things with. This very basic idea can be used to construct all sorts of interesting, explanative and predictive models. So it would make sense that you would want to get the most out of your time, seeing as that's one of the building blocks of your enjoyment of life

This is not how subjectivity works. You’re equating subjectivity to non-existence. Right and wrong can and in almost all cases do still exist to the moral subjectivist, they just don’t refer to an objective principle of reality. Subjective morals are derived from the subject’s interpretation of morality, any of these world ending philosophies would be considered wrong by the vast majority of people and so would be intersubjectively wrong.

English is my native language and I'm from the US, for context!

Ah, I didn't know you were specifically talking about spoken language.

I would like to clarify, I agree with your initial point. If a native speaker makes a grammatical mistake (online through text, or offline/spoken), I've also experienced people just shrugging it off (that's kind of where "it's assumed they know better" came from in my first reply).

To elaborate on my comparative experience with pronunciation differences:
Pronunciation is more likely to be perceived as "faulty" if both speakers are from the same area, but pronounce something differently. E.g., I'd never correct accented English pronunciation from a native speaker (be they from England, New Zealand, or just another part of the US, etc), nor from a non native speaker (so long as the non-native speaker's pronunciation wasn't interfering with understanding, and they weren't trying to "improve" their pronunciation). My example comes from friends who have grown up in the same city but pronounce something differently.

Very interesting conclusion in your last sentence!

Also, I wanted to say - I used your own wording as an example of a small mistake. I hope that didn't come across as me speaking down to you! I was wondering at the time if doing that would come across as rude, but I wasn't sure it would, because it was such an understandable mistake to make... I've enjoyed your thoughts and this conversation, so I just wanted to make sure I didn't come across as having engaged impolitely with you.

I don’t need to refute the nature of biological needs. To claim we have biological needs is a descriptive claim, to claim we ought to act in accordance with them is a normative claim. To derive a normative claim from a descriptive claim is inherently illogical.

Time for the open question argument. Let’s use, for example, ‘maintaining one’s health’ as our biological need. For this to be reducible to good, asking ‘is maintaining one’s health good?’ has to be a closed question (the answer must be yes in all instances - as it would be to ask ‘is good good?’) The answer is yes sometimes - most of the time, even - but what about when sacrificing your food so that your child can eat? (or any other instance of an answer which is anything but ‘objectively yes’).

Therefore, although biological needs are universally experienced and usually what we navigate towards, they are far from objectively moral.

correct.

>Direct democracy would provide maximum dispersion, what we have in most countries is representative democracies.

Isn't the reason for representative democracy to maximize dispersion while also allowing minorities a voice? Like in the 2 wolves v 1 sheep case mentioned in the article, allowing the sheep a voice that actually matters, even though they're in the minority, can keep the majority from having complete power.

>"However, it cannot somehow usurp its definition."

It is not intended to "usurp" its definition. The word "gods" (in any language, really) did not have its hard drive of meanings written by Judeo-Christian etc. religions coming in with monotheism and omnipotence and existing outside of time etc. It didn't instantly erase Ragnarok or Zeus and Cronus slaying Ouranos and then getting slain by his sons.

>"Just like how no amount of logical argument could change the definition of "being", or really any other word, because the meaning of words has never been tied to these types of logical arguments."

I have not argued otherwise. I obviously am already aware that the word 'morality' means different things to different people and that it is never tied to logical arguments like this since if either of those we would not be having this conversation, would we? We wouldn't even be able to have this conversation since it would be an impossibility for us since what you've just described would literally prevent us from having it, yes?

>"You can say the current definition of morality is incorrect, but on what basis? The basis that it is illogical is irrelevant (which I don't even agree with), because meanings of words do not have to follow logic."

I am not arguing that the meanings of words "have to" follow logic or anything else. And I do not mean that just because "imperatives" are a myth.

>"This may be true, however the issue is not that the definition is wrong. The definition was never wrong, not even then, because when people said "the sun", what they were referring to was an object that orbited the Earth (footnote below). The issue isn't that the definition was wrong, but that the defined object simply did not exist. Definitions (in a language sense) can never really be "wrong", so to speak. It's simply the word as defined may not exist."

Which is exactly the reason why you have not seen me say "The definition for morality in your dictionaries is wrong!" Instead what you have seen me say is (in a nutshell) "All our many lofty and conflicting ideas about morality being about right and wrong and should and moral values etc. are mistaken. Morality is, at its core at least, simpler than you might think."

>"Just like the definition of unicorn, as defined as "a horse-like animal with a single horn", is not incorrect, but the defined object does not factually exist in the real (real as defined in realism, as mind-independent) world."

Actually you're wrong there. Google "Elasmotherium sibericum" for the reason I nowadays use "pegasus" instead of "unicorn" in my argument about myth/fiction. Except for when I do use it but specify "magical unicorn" or, if I'm in the mood, "time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings". :-)

>"Footnote: They would have been wrong if they were to point at the sun in the sky and say, "that glowing object orbits the earth","

That is exactly what they did. They pointed at the sky and said "That glowing object and that pale object and those tiny dots of light are the Sun, the Moon and the stars and they all orbit the Earth." Case closed, you have no case. Their definition was factually wrong. Nice tr... actually, no, terrible try.

I understand your preference that the definition "Zeus is king of the gods and rules from Mount Olympus and throws all the lightning on Earth." be untouchable by logic but reality is that the mountain in question exists and Zeus ain't there and as we learned more about lightning it seemed more and more far-fetched that he was involved so eventually we added "Oh yeah, Zeus is also a myth."

That is what would happen to all those old conflicting ideas about the nature of morality, they would be seen for what they truly are, factually incorrect since they involved myths. Hypotheses and musings really.

Good talking to you too.

>"Morality is a word, yes? Words have meaning."

Everything has meaning.

>"I don't mean to get into the philosophy of language, but lets saying the meaning of words is based on common language use and the definitions within dictionaries, as is commonly accepted (if you disagree, read into theories of meanings and the philosophy of language to develop your own theory of meaning)."

Language is the communication of concepts e.g. a deer alerting its kin to danger with its tail communicating the concept of danger to its kin and they all flee.

Dictionaries are just a tool we humans use to attempt to keep track of the most common agreed upon meanings because we communicate a lot. What's that old black-and-white movie where the professor spent like a decade slaving away on the biggest encyclopedia yet then is utterly thrown by modern slang ("Corny?"), realizes the book would be half obsolete and basically employs a woman to help him and sparks fly? Eh, whatever.

>"For example, the meaning of literally used to mean "not figuratively", but because of common language use, it cannot be argued that it does not mean "figuratively" as well. The meaning of words is a complex, dynamic thing. This dynamic complexity is shared with the meaning of morality, as morality is a word like any other."

I understand what you're saying but all of this was known to me. To use your phrasing, you have no reason to tell me that when a number of people say the word morality some or all of them might mean different things by it.

>"I would concede to you that some concept akin to morality, that I will call from now on as EB-morality (for EducatorBig), could be something that is not imaginary and exists irrespective of the mind."

ALL concepts are non-imaginary and exist irrespective of the mind. The concept of plastic toothbrush cannot be destroyed once it exists. You can destroy the entire universe, even time and space on top of that, and the concept of plastic toothbrush would just continue to exist as it has since it began to exist, in the conceptual realm.

I was not talking about a concept existing, I was talking about the actual nature of morality. I.e. morality existing in that if humans did not evolve on Earth but instead a Martian people evolved on Mars then rape would be immoral there too for the exact same reasons as they are on Earth provided that rape would involve malevolence and harm (as those are the reasons).

>"However, the issue is, EB-morality is not synonymous with morality as used in English."

Sure, if you say so. But English dictates how the universe works? Dictates the true nature of morality? I think not.

>"That's my main problem with your point. You can argue that morality is malevolence and benevolence all you want, but to do so you would be logically required (and by logically required I mean that if you were not to, you would be being illogical) establish a new philosophy of language and meaning."

No. Language is the communication of concepts and meaning is... eh, you'll just quote "the official definitions from books that are official because they are in books" at me.

Also, I never argued that morality was benevolence and malevolence, that is over-simplying my argument bordering on strawman argument.

>"I'm not sure how to explain this in clearer terms. The concept you are professing could fit under the definition of morality and common language understanding of morality, but it is not the definition or common language understanding of morality. Because your definition concerns moral right and moral wrong, evil or good, it does fit as a "theory of morality", or an ethical theory."

My "concept" or "definition" (which is what you call it while I would hesitate to label it either of those things) of it does NOT concern "moral right" and "moral wrong", since (as I've said many times now) those are myths, except in the sense that it deliberately distances itself from them.

What I'm "professing" is how I have personally concluded the true nature of morality to be. If you want to call that my "theory of morality", fine, but it is not an all-new concept that whole-sale replaces anything, in a sense it just shaves off the myths, like "People should be moral." and "People should be immoral." having any connection with reality.

[deleted]

If morality is subjective then any example you give would not be morally wrong, so correct?

We can't explain the vast majority of the universe so call it dark matter and dark energy as a placemarker, we're quite positive that numerous additional dimensions exist but there's no way to measure or observe them, and likewise numerous, perhaps infinite, parallel universes or multiverses likely exist according to the latest equations but there's no way to verify it with observation.

And yet somehow you think we've reached a point in human history that we can rule something out despite not being able to sense nearly the entirety of what science tells us must exist out there, including ruling out an intelligent consciousness that may possibly exist outside our ability to measure with our crude tools.

Even the co-founder of string field theory, Michio Kaku, has said “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

He also said “Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable,” Kaku says. “That’s called ‘science.’ However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.” He’s noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such ‘non-falsifiable’ problem.

I am having a fun time using Stable Diffusion to combine philosophies with various physical things. For instance I like using the following 5 words: stoic, epicurean, hedonist, skeptic, ascetic

and follow that with... anything.

"Bedroom", "Bedroom theme", "Backyard", "toys", "toilet", "city", "art", etc.....

I find it interesting, nothing is too surprising, but its interesting to see these visualized. My most interesting thing so far, I got a hedonist bedroom that seemed to like Christmas trees and lights, but with the colors pink and blue.

(Note that the images I have below have more details in the prompts, that was because I was a noob before. Now I just edit the guidance scale)

https://imgur.com/a/CZAFRxE

Lets be philosophers, find it interesting, and figure out what is interesting. We all know how to be skeptics and poke holes.

Aristotle- I first must accept I have free will.

The young are thinking themselves into despair.

Why should young people concern themselves so frequently and often to the point of despair with questions of morality or even nihilistic beliefs? Aren't we allocated many years in the later stages of our life when we have more time, experience, and wisdom to dwell on such topics? The young's superior fluid intelligence cowers in comparison to experience. I propose that our younger years should be driven by self-improvement, and if you do believe that your opinions are superior, then also laying the framework for a career with power where your opinions might hold more weight. This should all be done while constantly learning so that you may be even more qualified to speak on topics like the ones mentioned.

As for the books you mentioned, many people find them informative and persuasive, but others disagree with the arguments and tone of these books, and that's perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's important to remember that there's no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to the relationship between science and religion or belief.