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

[Skepdick]

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).

You really are as clueless as a proffessional philosopher.

You believe that people can act on what they believe about immorality.

Therefore ???

[Wizard22]

You really are as clueless as a proffessional philosopher.

You believe that people can act on what they believe about immorality.

Therefore ???

Therefore beliefs are significant, and offer a gateway into people's core motivation/Psyche, what they will or will not do.

Therefore Skepdick will post some more Therefore's.

[Skepdick]

You really are as clueless as a proffessional philosopher.

You believe that people can act on what they believe about immorality.

Therefore ???

Therefore beliefs are significant, and offer a gateway into people's core motivation/Psyche, what they will or will not do.

Therefore Skepdick will post some more Therefore's.

You are 100% correct about everything you've said. Including the fact that I will post some more therefores.

Therefore: ???

[Lacewing]

Agreement is inconclusive. The reasons behind it can be varied and changeable for anyone involved. Perhaps what it 'means' is that it enables people to 'share some form of reality' (to whatever degree, or through whatever form) for as long as it lasts.

[edited by mistake... no changes made]

[Alexis Jacobi]

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?

Much depends on what stands behind what each mean by *right* and by *wrong*.

If one believes it is wrong (to abort a baby, or aid in that abortion) for moral reasons, that would be different from believing abortion is wrong because, say, it diminishes a population.

One could advocate against abortion, even if one feels to abort has no moral consequence, for a number of possible reasons: a) there is a need to increase the population; b) that no matter what people should be made responsible for their failure to use contraception and to outlaw abortion is a way to increase the probability that people will act responsibly. There are many other possible reasons.

The more common instance is that someone might believe that abortion is thoroughly immoral but might also believe that he does not have a right to impose his will on others. It is quite possible (it seems to me) that an absolutely convinced and dedicated Christian who believes not only that the action is immoral but will have dire consequences for the one who gets an abortion or facilitates and abortion, may still choose to allow people to make their own choices (and deal with the consequences -- in a future life obviously).

To ask the question you ask seems to have no *function* that I can discern. As you have set up the question they clearly disagree in regard to rightness and wrongness, but their differently constituted decisions to advocate for the banning of the procedure would not seem to have much relationship to the central position. Therefore, they disagree in one area and agree in another, for reasons one can only suppose.

[LuckyR]

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?

The two disagree... philosophically/morally. They may or may not agree on "other" considerations (the OP doesn't provide enough detail). Though they have come to the same conclusion, (my understanding is) you're asking about the nuances of their processes.

[Skepdick]

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?

The two disagree... philosophically/morally. They may or may not agree on "other" considerations (the OP doesn't provide enough detail). Though they have come to the same conclusion, (my understanding is) you're asking about the nuances of their processes.

Not a single person so far has demonstrated any ability to abstract away from the particulars and observe patterns or relationships to give a general answer which applies even when I switch up the variables.

Why do the answers keep changing when I switch up the story to from having consensus in words and divergence in action to having conseusus in action with divergergence in words?

e.g Philosopher A and B both hold that abortion is moraly right (or wrong - doesn't matter what their positions are).

Furthermore Philosopher A advocates FOR legalisation of abortion.
while Philosopher B advocates AGAINST the legalisation of abortion.

Do the two agree; or disagree morally?

[Skepdick]

Both
They disagree about the morality of abortion.
They agree about what law they want.

I find this incredibly peculiar way of reasoning.

If we are to believe that you believe this response then it necessarily implies that morality is more about what we say and less about what we do.

And that the "other consideration" (despite being more important than our so-called morals in ultimetely dictating one's actions) is not considered to be a moral consideration because it's not called such.

According to you morality is lip service. Fascinating!

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.

I provided just the information necessary to learn what I needed to learn.

The (so-called) non-moral consideration influenced the philosopher's decision-making more than their moral consideration. So whatever that consideration was, it was more important than morality to the philosopher making the decision.

Could you think of anything which supercedes our values when justifying our decision-making?

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.

The scenario isn't as important as the general/abstract principle - the relationship between facts and implications. As long as they use the same moral words it's sufficient for my experiment.

e.g it could be that they both think abortion is morally right; or morally wrong; while one advocates PRO abortion laws and other advocates ANTI abortion laws.

And if you are still distracted by the particulars you could just as well reduce it to a single-person scenario (which I consider equivalent for my purposes):

Suppose a Doctor's philosophical stance is that abortion is morally wrong, yet he has no qualms performing the procedure. Does the doctor agree or disagree with himself?

Anybody who insists that the doctor is performatively contradicting themselves necessarily does NOT believe in the existence of an is-ought gap.

Fact: The doctor holds the belief/mental attitude that abortion is morally wrong.
Value: The doctor shouldn't perform abortions.

If the is-ought gap is true then there is a disconnect between words and actions and moraity becomes just lip service.

[attofishpi]

Suppose a Doctor's philosophical stance is that abortion is morally wrong, yet he has no qualms performing the procedure. Does the doctor agree or disagree with himself?

The doctor is agreeing with himself that he is acting immorally.

[Skepdick]

The doctor is agreeing with himself that he is acting immorally.

Maybe.

Or maybe he's disagreeing with himself that abortion is immoral.

[attofishpi]

The doctor is agreeing with himself that he is acting immorally.

Maybe.

Or maybe he's disagreeing with himself that abortion is immoral.

Within a human mind there are degrees with everything...ya know, fuzzy logic.

Perhaps the context of the females situation swayed the doctor to do the abortion, as in this INSTANCE, he does not feel it immoral.

In another fuzzy logic context, perhaps where a couple decide they want to abort because one extra kid is going to be a burden, he feels immoral in those cicumstances, but still does the abortion knowing he made an immoral decision.

[Skepdick]

Within a human mind there are degrees with everything...ya know, fuzzy logic.

Perhaps the context of the females situation swayed the doctor to do the abortion, as in this INSTANCE, he does not feel it immoral.

In another fuzzy logic context, perhaps where a couple decide they want to abort because one extra kid is going to be a burden, he feels immoral in those cicumstances, but still does the abortion knowing he made an immoral decision.

Sure. Contextuality matters, so lets remove the modalities...

To what degree is the doctor who ALWAYS says that abortion is morally wrong yet ALWAYS performs abortions agreeing or disagreeing with himself?

[Sculptor]

Funny you should ask that. You should fucking try it once in your life: then you might know.

[Skepdick]

Funny you should ask that. You should fucking try it once in your life: then you might know.

You can't even answer the question, you fucking retard.

So how would anyone know?

Is a doctor who ALWAYS says that abortion is morally wrong yet ALWAYS performs abortions agreeing or disagreeing with himself?

[attofishpi]

Within a human mind there are degrees with everything...ya know, fuzzy logic.

Perhaps the context of the females situation swayed the doctor to do the abortion, as in this INSTANCE, he does not feel it immoral.

In another fuzzy logic context, perhaps where a couple decide they want to abort because one extra kid is going to be a burden, he feels immoral in those cicumstances, but still does the abortion knowing he made an immoral decision.

Sure. Contextuality matters, so lets remove the modalities...

To what degree is the doctor who ALWAYS says that abortion is morally wrong yet ALWAYS performs abortions agreeing or disagreeing with himself?

He's ALWAYS agreeing with himself that he is immoral.