Moral Relativism and its compatibility with other ethical systems

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

So you also think, I suppose, that they should place their wants above whatever costs there may be, right?

No. I expect and hope they will make an informed and rational cost/benefit analysis in their choices. I simply didn't want fear of suffering to set the price of their desires (or their principles) too cheap.

Quote:

Is there a limit, though (e.g. suppose that to get what you want, you had to contract terminal cancer.)?

Of course there are limits. And before you suggest I've imposed mine on them authoritatively somehow; no. They've developed their own.

Is there a reason you keep inferring ridiculous extremeism in everything I say?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

No. I expect and hope they will make an informed and rational cost/benefit analysis in their choices. I simply didn't want fear of suffering to set the price of their desires (or their principles) too cheap.

In other words, you want them to not let the prospect of suffering daunt them (within a reasonable limit) away from achieving what they desire?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

However, what you said was about actively causing them pain, as though something was done specifically to create pain? Does "letting them do it on their own" fall under this -- is it specifically designed to create pain?

I didn't say "pain"; I said "suffering". "Pain" strongly implies physical action. And yes, I sometimes made things harder for them than they might have been otherwise, to challenge them. Even creating problems for them to solve. I've spoken before about lying to them to make them use critical thinking to discover the truth. There was also discouraging them from quitting too easily when tasks became difficult. They did not enjoy that.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

In other words, you want them to not let the prospect of suffering daunt them (within a reasonable limit) away from achieving what they desire?

Sure.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Is there a reason you keep inferring ridiculous extremeism in everything I say?

I'm not sure where I'm doing that in every post I've made on this thread...

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I didn't say "pain"; I said "suffering". "Pain" strongly implies physical action. And yes, I sometimes made things harder for them than they might have been otherwise, to challenge them. Even creating problems for them to solve. I've spoken before about lying to them to make them use critical thinking to discover the truth. There was also discouraging them from quitting too easily when tasks became difficult. They did not enjoy that.

Yes, but when I was using the term pain I was using it more to mean suffering. In other words, what I was asking is "how is this specifically designed to cause suffering, i.e. have suffering as it's goal?" I.e. how does "letting them do it on their own" be something specifically designed to create suffering, i.e. that be its goal?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

Yes, but when I was using the term pain I was using it more to mean suffering. In other words, what I was asking is "how is this specifically designed to cause suffering, i.e. have suffering as it's goal?"

You're misunderstanding. I said "I have deliberately caused to suffer (or allowed to suffer) because..." which quite clearly specifies that the suffering was simply a means to another end, not a goal in itself.

Quote:

I.e. how does "letting them do it on their own"

Withholding support that would make things easier creates suffering that would not exist were the support offered.

Quote:

...be something specifically designed to create suffering, i.e. that be its goal?

Again, creating suffering was never a "goal" in itself.

[Piscivore]

I seem to have missed this edit, and I don't like not answering questions put to me:

Originally Posted by mike3

Also, how can one learn how to "logically defend their opinions and choices" if one was not lucky enough to get that kind of parenting when one was growing up?

I don't know; that's on the parents of those children. I only raised my own.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

You're misunderstanding. I said "I have deliberately caused to suffer (or allowed to suffer) because..." which quite clearly specifies that the suffering was simply a means to another end, not a goal in itself.

Not an ultimate goal, no, but an intermediate one, i.e. "means to end". So then how is "letting them do it on their own" designed to cause suffering, as opposed to merely causing it incidentally? As to me it seems one can "let them do it on their own" with no specific intermediate goal of causing suffering, even though suffering will result incidentally, and with final goal of teaching something.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I seem to have missed this edit, and I don't like not answering questions put to me:



I don't know; that's on the parents of those children. I only raised my own.

I wasn't referring to children with that bit.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

Not an ultimate goal, no, but an intermediate one, i.e. "means to end". So then how is "letting them do it on their own" designed to cause suffering, as opposed to merely causing it incidentally? As to me it seems one can "let them do it on their own" with no specific intermediate goal of causing suffering, even though suffering will result incidentally, and with final goal of teaching something.

I'm not sure which hair you are trying to split here, or why, so I don't know how to give you a satisfactory answer. For my kids, having to do hard things on their own without (or with limited) assistance was often uncomfortable, sometimes physically and mentally demanding, and on occasion emotionally upsetting. That's in comparasion to their peers, who'se parents would try to maximize the comfort of their children and kept them from unpleasant, upsetting, or demanding situations because they were "just kids".

ETA: For example, when my son was very young, seven or so, he was painfully afraid of strangers. He had saved his money (that he worked for) to buy a battery-powered engine for his wooden train set. We made him speak to the clerk and effect the purchase on his own impetus, and while it was extremely uncomfortable for him he overcame that and did so. Later, we required him to place his own orders at restaurants, etc. Now, at sixteen, he is confident and gregarious.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

I wasn't referring to children with that bit.

Well, I was speaking of my own children only with that. I expected them to logically defend their opinions and choices because I trained them to do so. As to how other adults acquire the skill- do a survey on the forum. I'm pretty sure there are examples of people who fit this criteria from many different circumstances and with several different experiences that have come into play to effect such a change.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mike3

You mean punishment, right?

There's also denial of basic rights (iPod, new shoes) and insisting on collecting them from school wearing that shirt.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's also denial of basic rights (iPod, new shoes) and insisting on collecting them from school wearing that shirt.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Now, at sixteen, he is confident and gregarious.

I presume that this was a desired outcome - and that he is now happier for it?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

I presume that this was a desired outcome

For me, yes. I didn't consult him first.

Quote:

- and that he is now happier for it?

That's hard to say. I don't have access to a son that was rasied in the exact same circumstances but that specific one against which to make a comparison. I hope he is.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

For me, yes. I didn't consult him first.

Yes, that goes with the territor, from the first slap on the bottom.

Quote:

That's hard to say. I don't have access to a son that was rasied in the exact same circumstances but that specific one against which to make a comparison. I hope he is.

Well, that's how it works. It's not a matter of saying "I will deny you this to make you definitely a better person later". It's a matter of saying "I'm doing what I think is right, but there's a terrible sense of dread that I might be screwing it all up and ruining your life". You're given an incontinent gurgling blob and told "Turn that into a happy productive adult. Make no mistakes." It's terrifying.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, that goes with the territor, from the first slap on the bottom.

Well, that's how it works. It's not a matter of saying "I will deny you this to make you definitely a better person later". It's a matter of saying "I'm doing what I think is right, but there's a terrible sense of dread that I might be screwing it all up and ruining your life". You're given an incontinent gurgling blob and told "Turn that into a happy productive adult. Make no mistakes." It's terrifying.

Pretty much.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Among other things. Sometimes it is to have the courage to choose suffering when it stands between them and something they want.


The essence of subjectivity. And not something I disagree with.


No, it isn't; but what values there are exist exclusively in the brains of humans.


I meant "the universe" apart from humans. Sorry I was not more specific.

Well, this is the key to my approach. I believe that if something exists in the minds of humans, then it's a real thing in the universe. If it exists in the mind of any human, then it's a real thing for all humans.

Quote:

I'm not sure where any of this is coming from, because I've made no argument that any of these things were not "real". This is the second time you've made such a distinction, and I'm not sure why.

If we agree, so much the better. It might be that when we've teased out the details, there is no disagreement from anyone.

Quote:

I like fish better than pork. That is a real preference. It exists in my brain, and as such is part of the universe. It gives me pleasure to eat fish. That is real too. This preference and the stimulus that engenders it being real does not make it an objective truth; that "fish is better than pork" is a universal value that other people agree with or are "wrong".

Your preference for fish is an objective truth. That fish is in some way better than pork is not. There we agree, pretty much.

The disagreement seems to be over whether the universe itself is value free. I consider that it isn't, in the case of human beings. For example, your car might run on petrol* rather than diesel. However, even though the car stops running when diesel is put in, it doesn't matter to the car. Either outcome is equivalent.

However, when Piscivore, who likes fish so much that he's named himself accordingly, has his carefully grilled rod-caught salmon steak fed to the cat and is given a pork chop instead, it does matter. The situation is quite different to the broken car. Piscivore feels a difference in value. Piscivore and his preferences exist in the universe. The difference in value is therefore real.

It is my belief that the universe does have value in it, because I exist in the Universe, and things matter to me.

Quote:

Okay. I haven't found much with which to disagree. It sounds like you are making me responsible for what previous posters have said, I can't argue on their behalf because I don't know what they've asserted.


Sure it matters; to other people, or as you say, to themselves. Maybe to some of the animals, depending on how intelligent they really are. The earth won't notice if we all disappeared, however. Nor will the sun, or the moon, or the stars, or gravity, or the weak nuclear force, etc. People only matter to people. Indeed, only people are capable of comprehending significance, because they alone create it.

However, people exist in the universe. They aren't some separate thing to be treated by different rules. They are subject to gravity and the laws of motion. Whatever applies to humans is a quality of the universe.

It may be that what goes on in most of the universe is purposeless. That appears to be the case. However, even if the only thing in the universe that operates a value scheme is me, then the universe contains value, and preference, and purpose. I don't consider these things to be in any way fictitious. The purpose and value can be evaluated by comparing the human with the car. The car does not value its fuel. The Piscivore does.

Quote:

And even almost all of the other people don't matter to a person. It is estimated that humans are only capable of really caring for 150-300 people at a time. Do you really care about the billions of people on the other side of the planet? Sure, you'll feel bad for a few minutes or even a few days if you hear about something bad happening to them, but before long you get involved in your daily life and you rarely even find out their names. Or what about the 100 billion dead? Do you grieve for them?

Even if I wasn't aware of the existence of other people in the Universe, their suffering or joy would be just as real as their physical presence.

Quote:

Well, I didn't say any of that, so I'm not sure how it applies here.

Again, I'm chiefly concerned to present my own views here. I don't necessarily mean to imply that anyone else necessarily disagree with me. It's a tricky topic and clearly there are many subtleties.

[Hokulele]

The values exist in the universe, but they are not universal. Nor are they imposed by some universal force.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

The values exist in the universe, but they are not universal. Nor are they imposed by some universal force.

If values exist in the universe, then the universe is not value-free.

As to whether a universe with value in it is compatible with materialism - well, that's the question. I think not, but I would be interested to hear from materialists who disagree.

[Hokulele]

If sentient beings did not exist, would the universe still have values?

ETA: Actually, I don't think the question makes sense. I don't see a "value" as a thing or a noun. To me, "value" is a property of things, so it cannot exist on its own. Sort of like does "blue" really exist as its own thing?

[Wuglife]

I don't think pain necessarily strongly implies physical action.

I think there is psychological and emotional pain as well. It might not be exactly the same thing, but the word "pain" is often used this way.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

Well, this is the key to my approach. I believe that if something exists in the minds of humans, then it's a real thing in the universe.

Agreed, conditional on what the specific meaning of "thing" is. If I imagine something- say a pink and purple half-rhino, half sharktopus, that's not going to be a "thing" that exists anywhere outside my head.

Quote:

If it exists in the mind of any human, then it's a real thing for all humans.

See, there's where you lose me. You may have your own idea about what I just described, but as you have no direct access to the products of my brainmeats the closest to having that particualr creature be "real" for you is a approximation. You don't know the selection of various body parts I've made, or the arrangment of them in my chimera creature, you don't know the shade of the colour I have in mind, or what sort of patterns the colours may form. And to all the someones to whom I've never mentioned the creature it does not exist at all.

Quote:

If we agree, so much the better. It might be that when we've teased out the details, there is no disagreement from anyone.

Wouldn't that be a swell world?

Quote:

Your preference for fish is an objective truth.

You've jumped to a different frame of reference. "Piscivore likes fish" is an objective fact, but that is a statement about me, not about the relative value of fish vs. pork.

Quote:

The disagreement seems to be over whether the universe itself is value free. I consider that it isn't, in the case of human beings.

Of course it isn't; human beings create value, create meaning, create significance. These things do not exist without humans creating them.

The assertion of moral relativity isn't that the universe is "value-free", it is that values differ. And they differ because they are created by humans- humans with different circumstances and different experiences.

Quote:

However, people exist in the universe. They aren't some separate thing to be treated by different rules. They are subject to gravity and the laws of motion. Whatever applies to humans is a quality of the universe.

It may be that what goes on in most of the universe is purposeless. That appears to be the case. However, even if the only thing in the universe that operates a value scheme is me, then the universe contains value, and preference, and purpose. I don't consider these things to be in any way fictitious. The purpose and value can be evaluated by comparing the human with the car. The car does not value its fuel. The Piscivore does.

I think what you are missing is that value does not just exist in brains, they are a product of those brains. "Wood" just exists, but a rocking chair has to be made.

Quote:

Even if I wasn't aware of the existence of other people in the Universe, their suffering or joy would be just as real as their physical presence.

I think we are having another frame of reference disconnect here. "Suffering" and "joy" are emotional states. We are talking about values, which are a judgment or interpretation of the relative significance of the emotional state to the person observing it. Bob is trapped in a small room. he doesn't like the lack of freedom; he is suffering. He values his freedom, and doesn't think it is right he's cooped up. Alice thinks it is very right, because Bob is in prison for stealing her money, causing her frustration, fear, and anger. She wanted to buy one of those cute little purse dogs and now she can't. Alice values her safety and stability more than Bob's freedom. Ted values law, so while he thinks Bob is an otherwise decent guy who only took the money because his family is in desperate circumstance and feels it's hurting them to lock him up, rules are rules. Carol, Bob's wife, thinks it is totally unfair to lock him up because law be damned, she needs him around and Alice has more money than she needs anyway, she should be locked up for buying frivolous toys when there are children (Carol's children, specifically) going hungry. The concrete walls enclosing him have no opinion.

Bob's suffering is an objective fact; the significance of his suffering is highly variable, and values are matters of significance.

To Hawkeye Peirce, soldiers getting hurt or killed was objectively bad. There was no excuse, no reason, good enough to justify it. To the generals and colonels who ordered the men into battle (and with whom he frequently clashed), there were. Some thought it was tragic, but necessary. Some thought it was "just a fact of war", and that the cost in human life and suffering was worth the larger good it did. Others were completely indifferent to the cost, trading it for personal glory sometimes. The significance of the dead and wounded men depended on the values of the person making the judgement.

Quote:

Again, I'm chiefly concerned to present my own views here. I don't necessarily mean to imply that anyone else necessarily disagree with me. It's a tricky topic and clearly there are many subtleties.

Indeed.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Wuglife

I don't think pain necessarily strongly implies physical action.

I think there is psychological and emotional pain as well. It might not be exactly the same thing, but the word "pain" is often used this way.

In the context of "disciplining/raising children" I think that it does. I think the first thing the mind jumps to is spanking and child abuse, not making them feel bad.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Agreed, conditional on what the specific meaning of "thing" is. If I imagine something- say a pink and purple half-rhino, half sharktopus, that's not going to be a "thing" that exists anywhere outside my head.


See, there's where you lose me. You may have your own idea about what I just described, but as you have no direct access to the products of my brainmeats the closest to having that particualr creature be "real" for you is a approximation. You don't know the selection of various body parts I've made, or the arrangment of them in my chimera creature, you don't know the shade of the colour I have in mind, or what sort of patterns the colours may form. And to all the someones to whom I've never mentioned the creature it does not exist at all.

I don't regard that as being necessarily significant. We all experience the world in different ways. My experience of, say, the sun shining on a day when I stay indoors playing video games will be quite different to Piscivore going for a run followed by several hours manual labour. However, we don't deduce that the Sun has no objective existence. Anything that is detectable can be assumed to connect with some kind of object that exists in its own right. Our own experience, emotions and feelings aren't accessible to other people, but that doesn't imply non-existence, or merely subjective existence.

Quote:

Wouldn't that be a swell world?

Might get a bit dull.

Quote:

You've jumped to a different frame of reference. "Piscivore likes fish" is an objective fact, but that is a statement about me, not about the relative value of fish vs. pork.

But I'm not claiming that things have intrinsic value. However, it's our experience that there's a qualitative difference between Piscivore eating fish and eating pork. The events have different values.

Quote:

Of course it isn't; human beings create value, create meaning, create significance. These things do not exist without humans creating them.

The assertion of moral relativity isn't that the universe is "value-free", it is that values differ. And they differ because they are created by humans- humans with different circumstances and different experiences.

When we are discussing the objects that make up the universe, we accept that we experience them, and measure them, in different ways. It's one of the first things we learn about the world. Two people on opposite sides of the house will see a different house. They won't therefore conclude that the houses differ. The house does not have multiple natures, and it exists in its own right, even when nobody is looking at it.

So if a child is suffering in Somalia, even though I don't know about it, that suffering is part of the same universe that I inhabit. I consider that the suffering contributes to some kind of valuation of the universe. How such a valuation could be performed is very difficult to establish, but we have no choice but to try. Literally no choice - because even the people who don't believe in objective morality still have to make decisions.

Quote:

I think what you are missing is that value does not just exist in brains, they are a product of those brains. "Wood" just exists, but a rocking chair has to be made.

Perhaps, but when it's made, it exists, and exists quite independently of the person who created it. It doesn't cease to exist when he stops thinking about it.

Quote:

I think we are having another frame of reference disconnect here. "Suffering" and "joy" are emotional states. We are talking about values, which are a judgment or interpretation of the relative significance of the emotional state to the person observing it. Bob is trapped in a small room. he doesn't like the lack of freedom; he is suffering. He values his freedom, and doesn't think it is right he's cooped up. Alice thinks it is very right, because Bob is in prison for stealing her money, causing her frustration, fear, and anger. She wanted to buy one of those cute little purse dogs and now she can't. Alice values her safety and stability more than Bob's freedom. Ted values law, so while he thinks Bob is an otherwise decent guy who only took the money because his family is in desperate circumstance and feels it's hurting them to lock him up, rules are rules. Carol, Bob's wife, thinks it is totally unfair to lock him up because law be damned, she needs him around and Alice has more money than she needs anyway, she should be locked up for buying frivolous toys when there are children (Carol's children, specifically) going hungry. The concrete walls enclosing him have no opinion.

Nevertheless, I consider that the suffering has an objective existence.

Quote:

Bob's suffering is an objective fact; the significance of his suffering is highly variable, and values are matters of significance.

To Hawkeye Peirce, soldiers getting hurt or killed was objectively bad. There was no excuse, no reason, good enough to justify it. To the generals and colonels who ordered the men into battle (and with whom he frequently clashed), there were. Some thought it was tragic, but necessary. Some thought it was "just a fact of war", and that the cost in human life and suffering was worth the larger good it did. Others were completely indifferent to the cost, trading it for personal glory sometimes. The significance of the dead and wounded men depended on the values of the person making the judgement.

However, I consider the different values that people assign to such events as being different attempts to measure something. That their measurements are different doesn't mean that no objective value exists. I don't consider that the fact that I can't experience someone else's suffering means that it isn't real. I don't consider that it's possible for something to be real and subjective. If it exists, it has objective existence. Otherwise, it's non-existent, like the half sharktopus.

Quote:

Indeed.

Even if all we establish is what people actually believe, that's worth while. In fact, one of the main benefits of posting on JREF is to find out what I think about something.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

In the context of "disciplining/raising children" I think that it does. I think the first thing the mind jumps to is spanking and child abuse, not making them feel bad.

Due to the nature of the universe, it's not possible, even if you were determined to do so, to indulge all the demands children can come up with. If your son objects to the rain there's nothing to be done. It's often the most indulged children who suffer most from such frustrations.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

I don't regard that as being necessarily significant. We all experience the world in different ways. My experience of, say, the sun shining on a day when I stay indoors playing video games will be quite different to Piscivore going for a run followed by several hours manual labour. However, we don't deduce that the Sun has no objective existence.

No- but my relationship to the sun does not have an objective existence. When I die, that unique relationship won't exist.

Quote:

Anything that is detectable can be assumed to connect with some kind of object that exists in its own right. Our own experience, emotions and feelings aren't accessible to other people, but that doesn't imply non-existence, or merely subjective existence.

Right, my emotions exist, but other peop'e reactions to mine may or may not.

Quote:

But I'm not claiming that things have intrinsic value. However, it's our experience that there's a qualitative difference between Piscivore eating fish and eating pork. The events have different values.

To me they do. The lunch lady who serves me probably couldn't care less, likely doesn't spend an instant thinking about it. A billion Chinese don't even know me, let alone have an opinion of what I like to eat.

In the eleventh century, there was a little girl who lived in a small village what is now Sweden. What is the significant difference between her favourite and least favourite foods?

Quote:

When we are discussing the objects that make up the universe, we accept that we experience them, and measure them, in different ways. It's one of the first things we learn about the world. Two people on opposite sides of the house will see a different house. They won't therefore conclude that the houses differ. The house does not have multiple natures, and it exists in its own right, even when nobody is looking at it.

We are not talking about the house. We are talking about what the house means to the people that look at it.

Morals are judgements, not nouns. You can't look at or experience a moral, it is a reaction to something that categorizes the significance of the object or event to the observer. This action is "bad"; that one is "right". This work of art offends me. That person should be treated this way.

Quote:

So if a child is suffering in Somalia, even though I don't know about it, that suffering is part of the same universe that I inhabit.

The suffering is objectively part of the universe. It's significance is not. If we don't know about it, it is meaningless to us. Even if we do know it, it probably means little to both of us; because we are sitting here typing instead of doing something about it.

Quote:

I consider that the suffering contributes to some kind of valuation of the universe.

Yes, when it is created by a human brain. And when the brains cease, the valuation will stop. What was the moral value of a T-rex eating a dying Triceratops while it was still alive? Did the fish form commitees to try and save the trilobites?

Quote:

How such a valuation could be performed is very difficult to establish, but we have no choice but to try.

We don't have to try, because we know we are pre-wired to make judgments. We assign significance and value automatically, without even thinking about it. In fact, part of skepticism is learning to check this impulse.

Quote:

Literally no choice - because even the people who don't believe in objective morality still have to make decisions.

True, but trivial. That we make descisions and judgments tells us not one thing about the substance of any descision or valuation.

Quote:

Perhaps, but when it's made, it exists, and exists quite independently of the person who created it.

No it doesn't? Where would it?

Quote:

It doesn't cease to exist when he stops thinking about it.

Yes, it really does; unless it is passed on to a different brain. Look at archaeology; what is the significance of the Olmec heads? Or the Venus of Willendorf? What did them mean to those who created them? We can guess, but we don't know. We can assign our own value to them. But the original significance, that value, is lost.

Quote:

Nevertheless, I consider that the suffering has an objective existence.

Suffering has an objective existence. The moral value of suffering does not.

Quote:

However, I consider the different values that people assign to such events as being different attempts to measure something.

What is being measured, specifically, in the story of Bob?

Quote:

That their measurements are different doesn't mean that no objective value exists.

Give me an example of an objective value then.

Quote:

I don't consider that the fact that I can't experience someone else's suffering means that it isn't real.

Of course the suffering is real. That's never been in question. But "suffering" is not a value, it is an event, something that happens. A value is a judgement about suffering. "Bob is suffering" is an event, an objective fact. Bob will suffer whoever looks at him, or if no one does. "Bob suffering is good" is a judgment about the event, and despite being real also, is entirely dependent on and relative to the human mind observing it.

Quote:

I don't consider that it's possible for something to be real and subjective. If it exists, it has objective existence. Otherwise, it's non-existent, like the half sharktopus.

I thought we agreed that mental concepts were real?

Quote:

Even if all we establish is what people actually believe, that's worth while. In fact, one of the main benefits of posting on JREF is to find out what I think about something.

Agreed.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I thought we agreed that mental concepts were real?

In the case of the Tulip-Billed Snakealope, the mental concept is real, but there is no corresponding real animal to which it relates. However, in the case of the Zebra, say, there is a real animal which exists as well. That's the distinction. Of course, there's also a set of animals which don't exist either as mental concepts or in reality. Whether you consider them to exist in a platonic realm of possibility is really outside the scope of this discussion, but could be dealt with elsewhere.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

In the context of "disciplining/raising children" I think that it does. I think the first thing the mind jumps to is spanking and child abuse, not making them feel bad.

So how are the things you mentioned designed to make the kid feel bad, as opposed to producing that as an incidental effect? Like how is "letting them do it on their own" specifically designed to make them feel bad, as opposed to that being an incidental result of it, with it being designed to in fact do something else?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I'm not sure which hair you are trying to split here, or why, so I don't know how to give you a satisfactory answer. For my kids, having to do hard things on their own without (or with limited) assistance was often uncomfortable, sometimes physically and mentally demanding, and on occasion emotionally upsetting. That's in comparasion to their peers, who'se parents would try to maximize the comfort of their children and kept them from unpleasant, upsetting, or demanding situations because they were "just kids".

ETA: For example, when my son was very young, seven or so, he was painfully afraid of strangers. He had saved his money (that he worked for) to buy a battery-powered engine for his wooden train set. We made him speak to the clerk and effect the purchase on his own impetus, and while it was extremely uncomfortable for him he overcame that and did so. Later, we required him to place his own orders at restaurants, etc. Now, at sixteen, he is confident and gregarious.

However, in the example situation, it doesn't seem it's specifically designed to cause "pain" or "discomfort" or "suffering", but rather that's an incidental effect. Rather, it's "specifically designed" to get them to learn to do things. Of course, learning it requires them to confront whatever it is that makes them feel uncomfortable, but the suffering doesn't seem like it is something that must be specifically intended, rather the intended thing is for is them to learn.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

So how are the things you mentioned designed to make the kid feel bad, as opposed to producing that as an incidental effect? Like how is "letting them do it on their own" specifically designed to make them feel bad, as opposed to that being an incidental result of it, with it being designed to in fact do something else?

Originally Posted by mike3

However, in the example situation, it doesn't seem it's specifically designed to cause "pain" or "discomfort" or "suffering", but rather that's an incidental effect. Rather, it's "specifically designed" to get them to learn to do things. Of course, learning it requires them to confront whatever it is that makes them feel uncomfortable, but the suffering doesn't seem like it is something that must be specifically intended, rather the intended thing is for is them to learn.

I don't know what to tell you. I've explained what I meant as best I could.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

In the case of the Tulip-Billed Snakealope, the mental concept is real, but there is no corresponding real animal to which it relates. However, in the case of the Zebra, say, there is a real animal which exists as well. That's the distinction. Of course, there's also a set of animals which don't exist either as mental concepts or in reality. Whether you consider them to exist in a platonic realm of possibility is really outside the scope of this discussion, but could be dealt with elsewhere.

I want to address this, but if you will indulge me I'll do it in the morning when I'm more coherent.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I want to address this, but if you will indulge me I'll do it in the morning when I'm more coherent.

I'm taking my time on this, as you may have noticed, but I'm planning to get there in the end. So no rush.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by mike3

So how are the things you mentioned designed to make the kid feel bad, as opposed to producing that as an incidental effect? Like how is "letting them do it on their own" specifically designed to make them feel bad, as opposed to that being an incidental result of it, with it being designed to in fact do something else?

I think I see where your problem is. Nowhere did I say I "specifically designed" anything regarding this, so whatever point you are trying to make that hinges on that criteria is non-applicable.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by westprog

In the case of the Tulip-Billed Snakealope, the mental concept is real, but there is no corresponding real animal to which it relates. However, in the case of the Zebra, say, there is a real animal which exists as well. That's the distinction. Of course, there's also a set of animals which don't exist either as mental concepts or in reality. Whether you consider them to exist in a platonic realm of possibility is really outside the scope of this discussion, but could be dealt with elsewhere.

So getting back to this then: "I don't consider that it's possible for something to be real and subjective. If it exists, it has objective existence."

What do you mean exactly by subjective? This says to me that you don't believe my opinion of an artwork is real, because it exists only in my head and is not directly accessible to others.

[Arcade22]

Never understood why individual people would bother with tying themselves to a specific "moral system". It seems like such a hassle and to what reward? The ability to deride people for doing what you dislike? Seems pointless on an individual level.

[Wuglife]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Never understood why individual people would bother with tying themselves to a specific "moral system". It seems like such a hassle and to what reward? The ability to deride people for doing what you dislike? Seems pointless on an individual level.

Are there any other ways in which one could one avoid being self-contradictory?

Some follow no coherent moral system--they literally say "It is right to do A and wrong to do B", but go ahead and do B and don't do A when it suits them. I think that shows a big lack of integrity. I actually do it sometimes too--I think everybody does on some level. But I try not to.