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

[phyllo]

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.

You're not explaining why A wants to give access to abortion if he/she thinks abortion is morally wrong.

It seems that A and B agree on the morality of abortion but disagree on something else.

I suppose it's like if Philosopher X thinks street drug use is morally wrong but proposes that drugs be legalized in order to reduce deaths, eliminate drug cartels, improve use of police resources, etc. Addressing a different, "bigger" problem first.

[Skepdick]

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.

This is absolutely nonsensical.

Beliefs about the world are not the same thing as beliefs about what we should DO about the world.

[Skepdick]

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

As stated above.

You're not explaining why A wants to give access to abortion if he/she thinks abortion is morally wrong.

I am.

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

[Iwannaplato]

Imagine the following scenario:

Philosopher A holds that abortion is wrong.
Philosopher B holds that abortion is right.

Both have their arguments and justifications and are dogmatically immovable from their positions (as all philosophers are).

Irrespective of their arguments and moral claims both philosophers advocate for laws against abortion on some basis other than moral consideration.


Do these philosophers agree or disagree?

Both
They disagree about the morality of abortion.
They agree about what law they want.
Possibly they disagree about the non-moral justifications for legislating against abortion.

I think it would be a stronger post if you included the non-moral considerations for both of them to for laws that are against abortion.

Most societies have acts that are considered immoral by the majority, but are not legislated against.

Here we have the scenario where someone wants abortion to be illegal, but thinks that abortion is right. The latter being an actual pro-abortion position - not just a position that thinks people should be allowed to get abortions, but that it's right to get them. Or perhaps I took that sentence too literally.

The OP reminds me of the issue of the moral realists vs. moral antirealists where both want legislation against rape. One sees it as objectively immoral, the other sees it as something they don't like. So, what's all the fuss? But that may be unrelated.

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?

It depends on individuals but someone who thinks abortion should be legal, but thinks it is immoral would likely or at least possibly act quite differently from someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with abortion (or some antinatalist who thinks it's a good thing). The person who believes in the right to abortion but thinks it is wrong to get one, could engage in all sorts of social behaviors in relation to their children, women who have gotten abortions, doctors who perform abortions, men who ask/demand that their partners or exes get abortions. Presumably they would also view the role of law - at least in this specific case - differently from those who think abortion is wrong view the role of law and who want legislation banning it. There might be disagreements about women's control over their own bodies - could even be connected to rights in relation to medical care, being committed for mental health reasons, and perhaps, for example, many rules that arose around Covid. These are examples of ways differences inherent in their position might lead to other behaviors despite seeming agreement about 'the main thing'.

Without knowing the reasons the person thinks there should be laws preventing abortion but who thinks abortion is right, it's hard to know. I am not sure if differences in behavior are entailed, but I think they are extremely likely at the social level.

We do have laws limiting and guiding behavior but most people consciously and unconsciously behave in ways that affect other people based on our beliefs, whether we think our beliefs about right and wrong, in general or about a specific issue, should be legislation. We don't just stop at the law when trying to affect other people. Or just let the law be the only guide to behavior.

I might not be for a law that says people can't step over a person in a crosswalk and ignore their cries for help, but I might very well, tell them they were an asshole later or in the moment. And parenting would be affected and my individual portion of social pressures - even at the minimal, nah that's not someone I want to spend time with level.

[Wizard22]

This is absolutely nonsensical.

Beliefs about the world are not the same thing as beliefs about what we should DO about the world.

Yes they are.

[Skepdick]

This is absolutely nonsensical.

Beliefs about the world are not the same thing as beliefs about what we should DO about the world.

Yes they are.

Really?

Do you believe that this color is red?
What does your belief about the color red imply in terms of action?

square-xxl.png

[Wizard22]

Really?

Do you believe that this color is red?
What does your belief about the color red imply in terms of action?

square-xxl.png

The difference is whether a car will stop at a stop light.

People act on their beliefs everyday, every second.

[Skepdick]

The difference is whether a car will stop at a stop light.

People act on their beliefs everyday, every second.

Q.E.D

there's a difference between belief and implication.

IF you believe the light is red THEN stop ELSE don't stop

Now notice how I wasn't talking about a stop light. I was talking about the color red.

Red doesn't imply stop. A red light implies stop.

[Wizard22]

The implication is that people aren't colorblind.

Some are, and have to look at the light's position because they can't determine it from color (red-green) alone.

[phyllo]

As stated above.

You're not explaining why A wants to give access to abortion if he/she thinks abortion is morally wrong.

I am.

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

You're not explaining B's views on this "basis other than moral consideration".

A and B may agree on that as well or they may disagree. We don't know.

What they disagree on is the importance of morality versus the importance of this "basis".

Philosopher A prioritizes "basis" and B prioritizes "morality".

[Skepdick]

You're not explaining why A wants to give access to abortion if he/she thinks abortion is morally wrong.

I am.

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

You're not explaining B's views on this "basis other than moral consideration".

A and B may agree on that as well or they may disagree. We don't know.

What they disagree on is the importance of morality versus the importance of this "basis".

Philosopher A prioritizes "basis" and B prioritizes "morality".

And why are you prioritizing the content of the "other than moral considerations"?

Do you not accept that people have freedom of thought and that they can make decisions however they see fit?

The only purpose of my thread is to try to understand what you think agreement between two people means; and what it looks like in practice.

I am trying to understand what you count as evidence FOR agreement and evidence AGAINST agreement.

[Skepdick]

The implication is that people aren't colorblind.

Some are, and have to look at the light's position because they can't determine it from color (red-green) alone.

That's not actionable.

I believe that some people aren't colorblind and some people are therefore ???

[Wizard22]

That's not actionable.

I believe that some people aren't colorblind and some people are therefore ???

Therefore people act upon what they perceive (and believe) to be red and green.

This can be shaken, to a degree, since the masses can be deceived.

People often "agree" on such deceptions.

[Skepdick]

That's not actionable.

I believe that some people aren't colorblind and some people are therefore ???

Therefore people act upon what they perceive (and believe) to be red and green.

This can be shaken, to a degree, since the masses can be deceived.

People often "agree" on such deceptions.

Rinse, repeat.

You believe people act upon what they perceive and believe to be red and green.

Therefore ???

[Wizard22]

Rinse, repeat.

You believe people act upon what they perceive and believe to be red and green.

Therefore ???

Therefore people can act on what they believe about immorality (abortion).