What does it mean to agree (edit: or dissagree) with somebody?

[Skepdick]

Imagine the following scenario:

P̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶A̶ ̶ ̶h̶o̶l̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶
P̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶B̶ ̶h̶o̶l̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶.̶ ̶ ̶

B̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶a̶r̶g̶u̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶g̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶m̶m̶o̶v̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶(̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶)̶.̶ ̶ ̶

I̶r̶r̶e̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶a̶r̶g̶u̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶i̶m̶s̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶p̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶a̶d̶v̶o̶c̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶s̶ ̶a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶r̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶i̶s̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶ ̶ ̶

D̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶p̶h̶i̶l̶o̶s̶o̶p̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶?̶

There is a doctor who ALWAYS says that abortion is morally wrong yet ALWAYS performs abortions.

Is this doctor agreeing or disagreeing with himself?

[Wizard22]

dogmatically immovable from their positions (as all philosophers are).

As typical on this forum, philosophical hobbyists have the exact-opposite view of Philosophers.

Philosophers can be moved by Reason, which means their premises are not "dogmatically immovable".

If that's what your values are, then you're not a Philosopher, and you shouldn't even be on this forum.



It's too bad that the majority of active Users here, are hobbyists, rather than philosophers.

[Skepdick]

Philosophers can be moved by Reason, which means their premises are not "dogmatically immovable".

Lets put this claim to the test, shall we?

If that's what your values are, then you're not a Philosopher, and you shouldn't even be on this forum.

What sort of reason can move you off the dogmatic premise that you are a philosopher?

I am of the opinion that even beliefs about one's own identity should be subject to falsification. Otherwise you might start believing the stories you tell yourself about yourself.

It's too bad that the majority of active Users here, are hobbyists, rather than philosophers.

What if I put it you you that as a proffessional non-philosopher I am much better at philosophy than all philosophers, and it is in the best interest of philosophy to reject it.

P.S you didn't even attempt to address the OP.

[Wizard22]

In order to agree to somebody or something, you first need an open-mind, which you negated in your own premises.

So your OP is hyperbole.

[Skepdick]

In order to agree to somebody or something, you first need an open-mind, which you negated in your own premises.

So your OP is hyperbole.

Still not addressing the OP.

If I SAY that I agree on the moral wrongness of abortion but I ACT and advocate to legalize it and give women medical access to it, do I agree or disagree on the wrongness of abortion?

Does verbal agreement and the holding of a belief entail or mandate any behaviour?

There is a clear logicall difference between. I hold the belief that X is wrong therefore nothing; and I hold the belief that X is wrong therefore I shouldn't do Y and Z.

[henry quirk]

Do these philosophers agree or disagree?

As a philo-hobbyist (dogmatically immovable): I say: they agree. Each is willing to use the Big Stick to force the other guy to do (or, not do) sumthin'.

[Skepdick]

As a philo-hobbyist (dogmatically immovable): I say: they agree. Each is willing to use the Big Stick to force the other guy to do (or, not do) sumthin'.

So if it was a carrot and not a stick?

Suppose that Philosopher A and B both agree that abortion is wrong.

Furthermore Philosopher A advocates for abolishing anti-abortion laws and granting women access to medical abortions on some basis other than moral consideration; while Philosopher B advocates for keeping anti-abortion laws and denying women access to medical abortions.

Is that agreement or disagreement?

[henry quirk]

As a philo-hobbyist (dogmatically immovable): I say: they agree. Each is willing to use the Big Stick to force the other guy to do (or, not do) sumthin'.

So if it was a carrot and not a stick?

Suppose that Philosopher A and B both agree that abortion is wrong.

Furthermore Philosopher A advocates for abolishing anti-abortion laws and granting women access to medical abortions on some basis other than moral consideration; while Philosopher B advocates for keeping anti-abortion laws and denying women access to medical abortions.

Is that agreement or disagreement?

In the above scenario: what's B's position?

[Skepdick]

As a philo-hobbyist (dogmatically immovable): I say: they agree. Each is willing to use the Big Stick to force the other guy to do (or, not do) sumthin'.

So if it was a carrot and not a stick?

Suppose that Philosopher A and B both agree that abortion is wrong.

Furthermore Philosopher A advocates for abolishing anti-abortion laws and granting women access to medical abortions on some basis other than moral consideration; while Philosopher B advocates for keeping anti-abortion laws and denying women access to medical abortions.

Is that agreement or disagreement?

In the above scenario: what's B's position?

As stated above.

[Wizard22]

Still not addressing the OP.

If I SAY that I agree on the moral wrongness of abortion but I ACT and advocate to legalize it and give women medical access to it, do I agree or disagree on the wrongness of abortion?

Does verbal agreement and the holding of a belief entail or mandate any behaviour?

There is a clear logicall difference between. I hold the belief that X is wrong therefore nothing; and I hold the belief that X is wrong therefore I shouldn't do Y and Z.

Beliefs are what a person acts upon, not upon what they say.

People are often surprised by what they actually believe in, when push comes to shove, because people are capable of self-deception.

Agreement presupposes coherence of what you say and what you actually do.

[Skepdick]

Still not addressing the OP.

If I SAY that I agree on the moral wrongness of abortion but I ACT and advocate to legalize it and give women medical access to it, do I agree or disagree on the wrongness of abortion?

Does verbal agreement and the holding of a belief entail or mandate any behaviour?

There is a clear logicall difference between. I hold the belief that X is wrong therefore nothing; and I hold the belief that X is wrong therefore I shouldn't do Y and Z.

Beliefs are what a person acts upon, not upon what they say.

People are often surprised by what they actually believe in, when push comes to shove, because people are capable of self-deception.

Agreement presupposes coherence of what you say and what you actually do.

Without the "I hold belief X therefore I should do X and shouldn't do Y" there is no incoherence.

I hold belief X therefore nothing.

Truth and belief as currently conceptualized say nothing about the implicatives of holding the belief.

[henry quirk]

So if it was a carrot and not a stick?

Suppose that Philosopher A and B both agree that abortion is wrong.

Furthermore Philosopher A advocates for abolishing anti-abortion laws and granting women access to medical abortions on some basis other than moral consideration; while Philosopher B advocates for keeping anti-abortion laws and denying women access to medical abortions.

Is that agreement or disagreement?

In the above scenario: what's B's position?

As stated above.

Yeah, I see that now (it's early here and I'm not fully caffeinated).

Both think abortion is wrong: so there's agreement there

B, despite thinkn' abortion is wrong, wants to retain anti-abortion laws; A wants to dump anti-abortion laws: so, there's no agreement (one wants to use the Bg Stick, the other wants to reduce the Big Stick's use). However, both still wanna use the Big Stick: so mebbe they agree after all.

[Wizard22]

Without the "I hold belief X therefore I should do X and shouldn't do Y" there is no incoherence.

As currently conceptualised beliefs have no behavioural implication.

Currently conceptualized beliefs have behavioral implication when a person is honest, self-aware, and devoted to his Word.

That's why being logically consistent is difficult, and philosophy hobbyists don't see the difference, or don't care.

[Skepdick]

Currently conceptualized beliefs have behavioral implication when a person is honest, self-aware, and devoted to his Word.

You sound like a proffessional philosopher.

Absolutely clueless about the disconnect between truth and implication.

That's why being logically consistent is difficult, and philosophy hobbyists don't see the difference, or don't care.

Consistent with respect to what? If I am consistently inconsistent isn't that a form of consistency?

Similarly: agreement with respect to what? Words? Implications? Actions? Methods? Goals? Outcomes?

[Wizard22]

I don't know if you're aware of it, but it is important to some people in the world, that their stated beliefs (words) cohere directly with what they do.

You may also be aware, that in ages past, it was important for Rulers, Monarchs, Nobility to remain true to their words, because it was a sign of their Authority and Power.

Today's Western politicians, who lie through their teeth, and Western moral-cultural "values", which promote lying, deception, incoherence, should not be used as a standard for what is classically true. In other words, in some societies, in some eras, it's critically important that a Man's Word be congruent with his actions. Some societies value Honor, Integrity, Trust, in that regard. I can see how these concepts are foreign to you, and most modern people or thinkers. I don't blame you for not knowing.