>I don't see how relational value would work without the anchoring of inherent value. In other words: if the valuer doesn't matter, why would his or her valuing matter?

To whom? And for what? Your valuing of things might well not matter at all to someone else.

Well, neoplatonism is a direct continuation of Plato's philosophy and refers to new ideas which arose in it's tradition. The term itself was coined only in the 19th century.

>You can't grind something up and extract x grams of value from it - it's not some objective physical property of a thing.

This is a strange analogy. There are many objective things in the universe that don't have mass.

>Everything is always valuable to someone for some reason.

I don't see how relational value would work without the anchoring of inherent value. In other words: if the valuer doesn't matter, why would his or her valuing matter?

No, of course not. I don't believe the idea of an inherent value is even coherent. Everything is always valuable to someone for some reason. You can't grind something up and extract x grams of value from it - it's not some objective physical property of a thing.

We remain a settler state but int the way it iwas used "Colonial America" has a pretty commonly understood time frame that it encompasses and its less useful to try to be pedantic about it.

We stoped being British but colonialism is something else. It's the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. The term country is used loosely and applies to Native American tribes and land.

Which one Antifa, BLM or MAGA? I don’t think you can provide a case of any of them. They are all decentralized populist movements. The opposite of a centralized authoritarian movement. I’m open to hear your argument but I don’t see anything resembling a fascist movement outside of the governments response to Covid and we were in the middle of a global crisis so that’s forgivable. Although they have been clinging to their authoritarian power far longer than they should but nonetheless.

>Mr Putin for example, a completely amoral person.

Rather I sense the moral compass we inheret is in a similar category to other feelings, so it's also possible to develop disorders where you don't process that feeling correctly in addition to simply missing it. Similar to eating or emotional disorders where you process otherwise normal physiological cues in abnormal ways.

I think the most common version being a sort of face blindness to other human's status as a human. A disorder I expect is cultivated by extremist ideologies.

With regards to goals though, I don't see such exploration as adding to the moral structure. Rather it would be an evolutionary perspective on human psychology, which might be revealing of certain types of goals but it seems entirely exploratory. I'm not really sure if there would be any additional predictive power in trying to tie various non-moral goals to evolution.

The common one being sex and family, but taking it further to consider the nuance of desire for particular sports or activities. Why some activities might be boring despite seemingly similar evolutionary utility to exciting activities. Again, none of the goals are 'good' or 'bad' they're just data points.

they are reactions to fascism, yeah. if you're pro fascism then you'd definitely hate those guys, who happen to be the majority of the people who live in the United States by a pretty massive margin

The paradox is fine as is. It makes sense and is backed up by history.

Depending on what the behavior is, believing it's evil or "sinful" can absolutely be intolerance. Murdering someone in cold blood? Not intolerance. Spreading the idea that gay sex is evil? Definitely intolerance.

You made some wild conjecture here. I did not say that companies should not exist. But you cannot prove that a company needs to be a person in order to produce things. At least you have not tried to. People own companies. People can enter into contracts. People can be sued. The only thing a company getting to be a person does is protect the people that run the company from the liability of their actions.

The whole thing assumes tolerance is a good value. I would argue that tolerance is not a good value to begin with, so there's only an alleged paradox because the author can't decide in himself whether tolerance is a good value or not.

Yes, historians often refer to the Colonial Era, The Early Republic, Antebellum, etc., but the US came into existence as a colonial power, expanded across the continent, and then grew in military, economic, and cultural strength. It was and remains a colonial power.

Eat the rich

Lol they are all reaction to the exact same thing. In general Antifa is a little different because the individuals in that movement tend to be from a privileged background so they don’t have as much in common as Jan 6/MAGA and BLM do.

So what's your solution?

You don't think disabled people and children are inherently valuable/have personhood?

You're moving the goalposts--you said "infinitely old" (which is meaningfully different from "eternal") and "infinity of infinities". I've never heard either of these phrases before.

There are also some great debates about omniscience, and how that coheres with the concept of free will.

Evolution doesn't have to encode goals except thriving, surviving and reproducing. These goals have an in-built pressure to achieve them. So, evolution encodes the pressure to achieve goals - any goal we like. Not every goal is a good idea in the long term though.

Again it's a good question how we pick up morals. Michael Tomasello theorises that we are evolutionarily primed and prepared to pick up environmental input at appropriate ages. So, first we learn helping, then fairness and responsibility towards partners, then following society's norms. You might like to check out his "Becoming Human - a theory of ontogeny".

Rules of thumb are definitely useful for anybody. I'm sure you're right that a lot of people use these. Apparently we get more morally conscientious as we get older, if we are so inclined (i.e., prosocial in the first place).

Labelling (or correctly identifying, words which you may prefer) these identities as constructs does not negate them. Language, mathematics, computers, the internet are constructs. These constructs are useful. I do not think that your real contention with my identities is that they are constructions.

These identities as constructs still retain power, they still retain use. They contribute to our collective intersubjectivity. Also, there is the issue which proceeds which, the referent or the reference? My position still stands within your own framework, so I don't find it necessary to belabor this point.

Perhaps you point out these identities are constructs in effort to get me to vacate my positions. Perhaps I am willing to do so. The question is, is it possible/are you willing to persuade each person you happen upon, these people who fills our lives and contributes to our collective intersubjectivity, that each and every one of their identities is constructed, is a dissimulation of reality, is a falsity? It would be an exhausting endeavor. I would be unable to do it out of lack of energy, nor do I think I have the animating moral forcefulness to try to convince these people that the way they view themselves (and subsequently how they treat others accordingly) is wrong. Besides, what is Right and what is Wrong? I think most people on this subreddit (and probably reddit in general) don't actually believe in concrete, objective morality. All things should be understood within this context.

Corporations aren't people just because the law of a profoundly stupid country wants to pretend they are.

If a country declares that people of a certain ethnicity aren't legally people, I'm not gonna fucking acknowledge such idiocy because the law says so either. That's arguably a more extreme example, but it's the same principle. Nobody should be fucking okay with corporatations being labeled as people unless they're literally an evil corporate figurehead (I realize the "evil" in there is redundant) or the politicians who serve the corporations.

Strongly disagree. What good would it be for society, if you cannot sue a company? What about the consumption of all goods and services that society needs, which will not be produced without companies? Without it, basically everyone will need to fend for themselves about everything - produce their own food, own machines, own railroads, own airplanes, ships, cars, etc. (which will not happen, so society will have to make do without any of it). And for what? What benefit would we gain by letting go of this? Cannot think of much, certainly nothing material enough to warrant a serious consideration.

I think something like multiple distinct "goals" is very hard for evolution to encode into organisms. It only has something like 7.5MB available to specify things into a baby's mental wiring, and a very crude training process. It also has to be robust to perturbations, so some of it is merely redundancy/buffers. And, of course, babies don't know the local language or customs, yet end up caring about them later in life, and not just instrumentally.

Most of the process of acquiring whatever we call "morals" must happen on its own, not in a hardcoded evolutionary way, even if evolution is responsible for the beginning and our more fundamental drives like hunger/arousal. I think in the process of trying to find explanations for why we feel things that we feel, we end up with certain moral axioms out of it. As we grow, their structure becomes more complicated, and we find and resolve contradictions (e.g. by finding simplified axioms that explain both values, or dismissing one contradictory axiom), leading us to believe there is One True Morality once we're old enough - even though basically everything is happening ad hoc.

don't forget the fact that pain and suffering as we understand them cannot continue past death so technically anyone suffering in pain can have their life improved by killing them.