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

[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?

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

Maybe!

Or maybe he's ALWAYS disagreeing with himself that abortion is morally wrong.

[attofishpi]

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.

Maybe!

Or maybe he's ALWAYS disagreeing with himself that abortion is morally wrong.

Nah, unless he is lying about what he says - he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

[Skepdick]

Nah, unless he is lying about what he says - he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

Why do you accuse him of lying?

He's being trutful about his moral opinions. He believes that abortion is wrong.

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 you can't go from "I believe abortion is wrong" to "I ought not perform abortion".

[attofishpi]

Nah, unless he is lying about what he says - he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

Why do you accuse him of lying?

He's being trutful about his moral opinions. He believes that abortion is wrong.

Which supports my statement: that he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

[Skepdick]

Nah, unless he is lying about what he says - he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

Why do you accuse him of lying?

He's being trutful about his moral opinions. He believes that abortion is wrong.

Which supports my statement: that he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

It also supports my statement: that he disagrees with himself that abortion is immoral.

Now consult the subject line of this thread. Do you understand the problem?

[attofishpi]

Why do you accuse him of lying?

He's being trutful about his moral opinions. He believes that abortion is wrong.

Which supports my statement: that he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

It also supports my statement: that he disagrees with himself that abortion is immoral.

No it doesn't support your statement, it supports the fact that people act against their principles of morality.

[Skepdick]

Which supports my statement: that he agrees with himself that he is immoral in partaking in abortions.

It also supports my statement: that he disagrees with himself that abortion is immoral.

No it doesn't support your statement, it supports the fact that people act against their principles of morality.

Acting against your stated principles Iis exactly the same thing as disagreeing with your principles.

Your level of sophistry and attempt to re-frame the issue doesn't make the issue go away.

[attofishpi]

It also supports my statement: that he disagrees with himself that abortion is immoral.

No it doesn't support your statement, it supports the fact that people act against their principles of morality.

Acting against your stated principles Iis exactly the same thing as disagreeing with your principles.

No it's not - MONEY is a big driver of fucking 'principles' to shite.

[Skepdick]

No it's not - MONEY is a big driver of fucking 'principles' to shite.

It seems you've been triggered by the irresolvable paradox and you are now just spewing bullshit.

A lot like a memory dump of a program when it crashes...

[attofishpi]

..so long as U keep telling yourself that Skeppy! ..I fucked your mainframe.

[Skepdick]

..so long as U keep telling yourself that Skeppy! ..I fucked your mainframe.

What I'm telling myself is that you've been terminated from the mainframe.

We won't be examining the crash-dump...

[Age]

Imagine the following scenario:

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

Who and/or what even IS a so-called 'philosopher', to 'you', "skepdick"?

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

Is 'your' OWN view and position on and of A "philosopher" movable "skepdick"?

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

So,

WHAT 'you' have, now, INTRODUCED is the scenario that these two so-called "philosophers" are, now, 'advocating for laws', right?

WHY would the so-called "philosopher B", which HOLDS that 'abortion is right', WANT to 'advocate for laws AGAINST abortion'?

And, WHY are these two, now, SUPPOSEDLY, 'arguing' on 'some basis' other than 'moral consideration'?

Do these philosophers agree or disagree?

Well in one part of YOUR scenario here 'you' SAY that 'they' ARE 'disagreeing', but in another part of YOUR scenario you are SAYING that they ARE 'agreeing'. Which I am STILL WONDERING WHY?

[Skepdick]

...Which I am STILL WONDERING WHY?

Why are you wondering why, Age?

P.S this is a rhetorical question.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

I don't think law/legislation and morality cover the same turf, though there's overlap. I went into that. I also went into likely behavioral differences.

According to you morality is lip service. Fascinating!

I can understand you writing this after you read that much. But that you left it in after reading the rest of my post doesn't make sense to me.

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.

In your hypothetical scenario. I also looked in this in my post, though not as much as I would have if you had given examples. I worked with your hypothetical philosophers as best I could. And one of them is a very rare creature. The one who thinks abortion is right but wants legislation against abortion.

But then I have no idea what you needed to learn. If you're learning it, great.

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

Again, laws are not the only form of decision-making, and arguing in favor of certain laws is not the only kind of behavior.

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?

And now you are bringing in attitude. You first scenario said nothing about how this person feels. I even gave an example where I saw a behavior that I had qualms about, but which I did not think there should be legislation against.

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.

Though not in its usual conception. Here you are saying that morals should lead to certain behaviors and behaviors should be aligned with one's morals.

That's not an argument against the is-ought issues as it is usually conceived. It is generating the oughts that everyone should follow from is, rather then pointing out hypocricies or contradictions between individuals who have values and their behavior in the world.

Well, you acted as if I hadn't written a number of things I wrote.

It's a good topic. I still think it would be better with details.

I'll respond to others. You're getting what you need. So, it's working for you, great.

[Age]

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?

Although this scenario makes MORE SENSE, 'it' is STILL REALLY VERY STUPID and ACTUALLY Truly IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, a LOT of what 'you', adult human beings, ACTUALLY DO, goes FULLY AGAINST what 'you' ACTUALLY KNOW to be True.

Now, as for IF 'you' ARE 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' WITH "your" 'selves', 'this' COMES-TO-LIGHT WHEN 'you' LEARN, and KNOW, what the proper AND correct ANSWER IS to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

See, who and what 'you', human beings, REALLY ARE is NOT who and what 'I' ACTUALLY AM.

Also, let us NOT FORGET that a so-called "doctor" is ONLY A MINUTE PART of A 'human being'.

By the way, NO 'human being' could ALWAYS say 'one thing' NOR ALWAYS perform 'one thing'. So, 'your' scenario here, "skepdick" REALLY IS Truly IMPOSSIBLE.