The Great Contradiction

[Angra Mainyu]

Essentially you're asking how we make moral judgements if there's no fact of the matter independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes.

Actually, my question is how under your proposal whoever gets to make the laws is supposed to figure which behaviors they are to ban (i.e., what do you propose on the matter).

What I'm getting here is that you are suggesting pragmatic responses to whatever the majority believes is wrong and sufficiently so to ban. But then, it seems to me it would be in accordance to your proposal to criminalize homosexual behavior, if the majority find it immoral enough. The defense 'they're punishing the innocent' would fail because there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone is innocent.

 

[The AntiChris]

Essentially you're asking how we make moral judgements if there's no fact of the matter independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes.

Actually, my question is how under your proposal whoever gets to make the laws is supposed to figure which behaviors they are to ban (i.e., what do you propose on the matter).

In a democracy the voting public informs the lawmakers. (I thought I'd explained this in my previous post)

What I'm getting here is that you are suggesting pragmatic responses to whatever the majority believes is wrong and sufficiently so to ban. But then, it seems to me it would be in accordance to your proposal to criminalize homosexual behavior, if the majority find it immoral enough.

Isn't this what happens at the moment? It's a problem with any democratically mandated system of law-making.

I think you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I've not made any proposals/suggestions regarding the ways laws are enacted in a democracy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In a democracy the voting public informs the lawmakers. (I thought I'd explained this in my previous post)

So, suppose the majority of the voting public wants to ban abortion, or homosexual sex. Are lawmakers supposed to do as the majority want?
At any rate, there is then the question of how the voting public is supposed to figure out - under this proposal - what behaviors to ban.

Isn't this what happens at the moment? It's a problem with any democratically mandated system of law-making.

Actually, the problem for your proposal is that it does not seem to classify as a problem that the majority want that. In other words, I would say the public in those cases are on the wrong.

If the majority want something truly beyond the pale, the system you propose would seem to be against resistence.

I think you've misunderstood what I've been saying. I've not made any proposals/suggestions regarding the ways laws are enacted in a democracy.

But the way in which behaviors are punished: you talked about pragmatic responses to wrongdoing, but then said there is no fact of the matter.
Anyway, I also got misled by the other thread, which I thought still reflected more or less your views since you posted a link and refer me to it. Now it seems your views changed a lot since then. But by reading both threads, they appeared to be very similar.

 

[The AntiChris]

So, suppose the majority of the voting public wants to ban abortion, or homosexual sex. Are lawmakers supposed to do as the majority want?

Isn't this that what happens in a democracy? Sometimes it gets worse - sometimes the majority wants to elect someone like Trump!

At any rate, there is then the question of how the voting public is supposed to figure out - under this proposal - what behaviors to ban.

I answered this question in a previous post:

So now you ask: if there's no fact of the matter, how do the people decide? The people are a collection of individuals - individuals decide.

So now you ask: if there's no fact of the matter how do individuals decide which behaviours to respond to with disapproval?

Essentially you're asking how we make moral judgements if there's no fact of the matter independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes.

The simple answer is we make moral judgements based entirely on our individual beliefs, feelings and attitudes because there is no independent fact of the matter.

Isn't this what happens at the moment? It's a problem with any democratically mandated system of law-making.

Actually, the problem for your proposal...

I haven't proposed anything regarding changes to law-making in our current democratic system! This is getting a little frustrating.

If the majority want something truly beyond the pale, the system you propose would seem to be against resistence.

I haven't proposed anything regarding changes to law-making in our current democratic system! This is getting very frustrating.

I also got misled by the other thread....

There has to be some reason why your questions don't seem to relate to anything I've said in this thread.

….since you posted a link and refer me to it.

This is a little disingenuous. You asked me for a link to a previous discussion I'd had with Bomb#20 in 2006. I provided the link but made it clear I didn't want to re-hash old arguments.

 

[ruby sparks]

If the majority want something truly beyond the pale, the system you propose would seem to be against resistence.

This may indeed be a flaw in the democritization of morality. I would ask, do you have a better way than, in the end, agreement? You propose objective morals, but they are really just those that are or would be 'very much agreed on', whatever they may be, and quite possibly may vary from zeitgeist to zeitgeist.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Isn't this that what happens in a democracy? Sometimes it gets worse - sometimes the majority wants to elect someone like Trump!

Sometimes it happens, but when it does, the majority of voters makes a mistake. They are behaving unjustly.

Essentially you're asking how we make moral judgements if there's no fact of the matter independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes.

I already replied to that. Actually, my question is how under your proposal whoever gets to make the laws is supposed to figure which behaviors they are to ban (i.e., what do you propose on the matter).

I haven't proposed anything regarding changes to law-making in our current democratic system! This is getting a little frustrating.

Here it is:

I think we should do the minimum necessary (where appropriate) to achieve deterrence, rehabilitation, societal protection and restoration. These are all considered, by most, to be forms of punishment but they're not (in my view) "deserved" - they're pragmatic responses to wrongdoing (they're consequentialist reasons for punishment).

You are saying that we should do. And further:

Elected governments must be the arbiters. However punishment policy should be driven by the objective of making society safer and not by appeasing retributive pressures.

Again, you are making claims about what should be the case, and who must be the arbiter. But it is not the case, as a matter of fact, that they must be the arbiter. Did you also mean they should be the arbiter?

You also said:

The question for me is whether retributive desires should be resisted/discouraged.

But if there is no fact of the matter as to whether it should be resisted/discourage, that is a question that has no answer. Is that what you are saying, or I got that wrong?

I haven't proposed anything regarding changes to law-making in our current democratic system! This is getting very frustrating.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but your words clearly indicated otherwise. Purely for example, you did say that "Elected governments must be the arbiters." Well, if you meant that as a matter of nonmoral fact, it is false. There are cases in which there are no elected governments. If, on the other hand, you mean they should be the arbiters, then:

1. How does that work, if there is no fact of the matter as to who should be the arbiter? (due to their not being moral facts).

2. Regardless, what if the majority wants something beyond the pale? Your claim indicates they must be the arbiters regardless. Or are you saying that they must not be the arbiters if they do not drive their policy by "the objective of making society safer and not by appeasing retributive pressures."

There has to be some reason why your questions don't seem to relate to anything I've said in this thread.

They are spot-on, though, based on a reasonable reading of your words. But I guess you meant something else. Still, given the above (see the quotes; I can mention more), I just do not understand what it is you were doing if not proposing things when you said that things should or must be the case, or that we should do this or that, etc.

This is a little disingenuous. You asked me for a link to a previous discussion I'd had with Bomb#20 in 2006. I provided the link but made it clear I didn't want to re-hash old arguments.

The accusation of disengenousness is out of place. Yes, you said precisely that you did not want to re-hash old arguments. A reasonable reading is that you think that a new engagement would result in, well, re-hashing the old arguments, not that it would result in radically different arguments due to a U-turn in your views. Moreover, my reading of both threads confirmed as far as I could tell the assessment that your views were at least roughly the same, as your proposals seemed similar in both (okay, you can say you did not propose anything, but (see above) I just have no clue as to what you have been saying if you did not. Could you please explain? ).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If the majority want something truly beyond the pale, the system you propose would seem to be against resistence.

This may indeed be a flaw in the democritization of morality. I would ask, do you have a better way than, in the end, agreement? You propose objective morals, but they are really just those that are or would be 'very much agreed on', whatever they may be, and quite possibly may vary from zeitgeist to zeitgeist.

My question was in the context of a challenge to what I thought was The AntiChris' proposal. Now I have no idea what he means.

But anyway, I'd say whether there is a better way depends on the case. For example, suppose the majority wants to imprison or execute or castrate or whatever the minority of men who have consensual sex with other men. A better way than being so punished could be to organize underground networks to successfully break the law and escape prosecution. But in that case, I would say that the majority is on the wrong. Now if the majority wants to exterminate a minority, then a better way would be for a minority to take power via a coup, and have an inevitably authoritarian but not genocidal regime. And again, I would say the majority is on the wrong.

 

[The AntiChris]

I think we should do the minimum necessary (where appropriate) to achieve deterrence, rehabilitation, societal protection and restoration. These are all considered, by most, to be forms of punishment but they're not (in my view) "deserved" - they're pragmatic responses to wrongdoing (they're consequentialist reasons for punishment).

You are saying that we should do.

Sure. I'm describing how I would like to see current punishment policy driven.

Elected governments must be the arbiters.

Again, you are making claims about what should be the case,

This wasn't intended as a normative claim. I was responding to your question ("who should be the arbiter...?"). I was describing what occurs in a democracy (our current system). I certainly wasn't proposing a change to our current democratic system.

I haven't proposed anything regarding changes to law-making in our current democratic system! This is getting very frustrating.

Sorry if I misunderstood,

You have misunderstood if you think I am proposing anything other than a change in emphasis in our current punishment policy. I certainly did not intend to suggest that I wanted to change how we select lawmakers in our current democracy. If the words I chose in my responses misled you, I apologise.

___________________________

A constant theme of your questioning appears to be of the form: If there is no fact of the matter (independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes), how do we decide?. What happens currently is that we canvass the views (the beliefs, feelings or other attitudes) of the population in elections and implement the consensus view. I'm not making any claim about what we should do, I'm simply describing what happens now.
___________________________

This is a little disingenuous. You asked me for a link to a previous discussion I'd had with Bomb#20 in 2006. I provided the link but made it clear I didn't want to re-hash old arguments.

The accusation of disingenousness is out of place.

You said you "got misled" and implied it was because I referred you to a previous discussion. I supplied the link, at your request, for your interest out of politeness. Your implication that I had misled you was unwarranted.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This wasn't intended as a normative claim. I was responding to your question ("who should be the arbiter...?"). I was describing what occurs in a democracy (our current system). I certainly wasn't proposing a change to our current democratic system.

Then it seems you misunderstood my question too. It was a 'should' question, and I got a 'should' response, so I didn't think you had misunderstood, and interpreted the answer in the sense of the question.

You have misunderstood if you think I am proposing anything other than a change in emphasis in our current punishment policy. I certainly did not intend to suggest that I wanted to change how we select lawmakers in our current democracy. If the words I chose in my responses misled you, I apologise.

Ok, no problem (I got that you did not suggest to change how you select lawmakers. But I thought you were saying more than proposing a change in emphasis. I thought you were saying that the change in emphasis was something that (we, or someone) should do, and a number of other moral claims).

You said you "got misled" and implied it was because I referred you to a previous discussion. I supplied the link, at your request, for your interest out of politeness. Your implication that I had misled you was unwarranted.

I said I got misled by the other thread, not that you deliberately misled me. I appreciate the link, but regarding your explanation that you did not want to re-hash old arguments, I reckon you probably got that wrong. In my assessment, a discussion between you and B20 is not likely to re-hash them, as your position about some of the key issues appears to be pretty different now (e.g., about why we should not punish the innocent).

 

[The AntiChris]

...your position about some of the key issues appears to be pretty different now (e.g., about why we should not punish the innocent).

I'll take your word for it - it was 14 years ago!

However, as far as I can tell I haven't actually made a case for not punishing the innocent on this thread so I'm not sure how you conclude that my views on this have changed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

...your position about some of the key issues appears to be pretty different now (e.g., about why we should not punish the innocent).

I'll take your word for it - it was 14 years ago!

However, as far as I can tell I haven't actually made a case for not punishing the innocent on this thread so I'm not sure how you conclude that my views on this have changed.

Because your position now is that there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone is guilty, or about what they deserve.

 

[The AntiChris]

...your position about some of the key issues appears to be pretty different now (e.g., about why we should not punish the innocent).

I'll take your word for it - it was 14 years ago!

However, as far as I can tell I haven't actually made a case for not punishing the innocent on this thread so I'm not sure how you conclude that my views on this have changed.

Because your position now is that there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone is guilty

You're mistaken.

In fact I have explicitly stated the opposite : "There is a fact of the matter as to whether someone has broken the law." (post #582)

What I have said, is that there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone has acted immorally. This is a position I held in 2006 and so has not changed.

 

[fromderinside]

I frown upon hair splitting indefinites. Whether one can be guilty of a morally based crime statute and not be be immoral is such an indefinite. From my perspective morals aren't universal. There may be universal trends among man to being moral but each culture has differences which results in morals for each culture being different.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because your position now is that there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone is guilty

You're mistaken.

In fact I have explicitly stated the opposite : "There is a fact of the matter as to whether someone has broken the law." (post #582)

What I have said, is that there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone has acted immorally. This is a position I held in 2006 and so has not changed.

When I said "Because your position now is that there is no fact of the matter as to whether someone is guilty", I was not talking about breaking the law. I was talking about morality. By "guilty" I mean in the moral sense, i.e., someone who behaved immorally.

I did not know you held the position that there are no moral facts in 2006. In fact, after reading several pages of the thread, it was apparent to me that you believed there was a fact of the matter as to who is a wrongdoer, what fairness dictates, what is a correct sense of unfairness, what should motivate us, whether something is an injustice (i.e., a moral injustice) and so on. Now given your replied, I read several more pages, and found a post in which you said there is no objective moral standard. In light of my reading of your previous posts over there, I reckon I just can't understand your position, so I'll leave it at that.