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

[Lacewing]

How can your argumentative and dismissive nature ever be satisfied?

Answering the question above would be a good start.

It's your inconclusive obsession... you figure it out.

[Skepdick]

How can your argumentative and dismissive nature ever be satisfied?

Answering the question above would be a good start.

It's your inconclusive obsession... you figure it out.

I can't. I don't know how to conclude inconclusive things. Because if I conclude them they wouldn't be inconclusive, would they?

So I am asking you. The concluder of inconclusive things.

Are you ageeing or disagreeing with yourself by concluding inconclusive things?

[iambiguous]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

Sounds like a personal problem.

But we'll still need a context.

In other words, something concrete that you and I can explore. Something we agree or disagree about.

Otherwise, foe me and get me out of your head too.

You mean like the concrete example in the OP that didn't help you get out of your head?

You can't seem to agree with yourself on what you want...

This OP?

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?

As for this...

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

Is this doctor agreeing or disagreeing with himself?

I did respond:

Well, first we would need to ask him or her why he or she does what he or she says is wrong.

Is the doctor a hypocrite? Is someone pointing a gun at the doctor and saying "abort or else"?

But more to the point [mine] there is a crucial difference between everyone being able to agree that a particular woman had a particular abortion when in fact she did have it and [philosophically] confronting the fact that some people argue that abortion is moral while others argue that it is immoral.

That's the part that interests me. In other words, why it seems considerably more problematic that an agreement can be reached regarding the morality of abortion as opposed to the fact of one.

Though, sure, if that's not what interests you, fine, don't read my posts.

[iambiguous]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

Sounds like a personal problem.

But we'll still need a context.

In other words, something concrete that you and I can explore. Something we agree or disagree about.

Otherwise, foe me and get me out of your head too.

I interjected the word 'asshole', but the rest of what I said summarizes what other people have pointed out. That may be different than what you've said, but I was referring to those who did suggest such things. So don't put yourself in the middle of what doesn't apply to you... and don't imagine that you're in my head.

No, I meant a different kind of context. A context that we run into in the news media all the time...the war in Ukraine, the abortion conflagration, gun violence, the Trump indictments, anti-woke legislation, racism, the transgender controversy, etc.

Agreements and disagreements there. Why, as I noted above, disagreements are far more frequent regarding moral and political value judgments even though there are any number of objective facts that are applicable to everyone.

[Skepdick]

I did respond:

Well, first we would need to ask him or her why he or she does what he or she says is wrong.

Why would you even ask such a question, unless you think that believing X is wrong implies you shouldn't do X?

But if you believe such an implication exists then you are violating the is-ought gap.

Is the doctor a hypocrite? Is someone pointing a gun at the doctor and saying "abort or else"?

The doctor doesn't understand your question.

Are you suggesting that a belief in the wrongness of abortion implies that one shouldn't perform abortions?

What's the connection between these two things?

But more to the point [mine] there is a crucial difference between everyone being able to agree that a particular woman had a particular abortion when in fact she did have it and [philosophically] confronting the fact that some people argue that abortion is moral while others argue that it is immoral.

Why are you diluting all the context we've established with this recontextualization attempt?

That's the part that interests me. In other words, why it seems considerably more problematic that an agreement can be reached regarding the morality of abortion as opposed to the fact of one.

I am not sure what any of that achieves for you.

Suppose that the doctor agrees with you that it's wrong. And suppose even that it's a fact that abortion is wrong.

And then the doctor still performs an abortion.

What of it?

[attofishpi]

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

No it's not, I just screwed Skeppy's entire argument to the point that he had to change the thread title - I still fucked his mainframe.

Did anybody ever explain to you how memory protection works in an operating system?

A single process crashing and spewing garbage (you) doesn't result in total system failure.

OMG Skeppy, you still going!!?

Oh! U thought I was being literal in stating I fucked U because you are a mainframe!


Are you standing by your statement that I am talking bullshit, that you found some 'paradox'?

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.

So for you a doctor that believes abortion is immoral, but terminates a pregnancy is acting out from his disbelief in his belief in a moral principle?
That he disagrees with himself!

Whereas I am stating, that this doctor remains in belief that he is acting immoraly, driven by money or any other factor, he remains in his belief that he is acting immorally – driven by other factors.

Where is the paradox?

[Skepdick]

Whereas I am stating, that this doctor remains in belief that he is acting immoraly, driven by money or any other factor, he remains in his belief that he is acting immorally – driven by other factors.

Why do you say that?

Does a belief in the wrongness of abortion come with any oughts and ought nots about abortion?

Where is the paradox?

It's in the is-ough gap.

If you agree that the is-ought gap holds while you also believe that abortion being wrong implies that you ought not do abortions; then do you agree or disagree that the is-ought gap holds?

[attofishpi]

Whereas I am stating, that this doctor remains in belief that he is acting immoraly, driven by money or any other factor, he remains in his belief that he is acting immorally – driven by other factors.

Why do you say that?

Does a belief in the wrongness of abortion come with any oughts and ought nots about abortion?

Where is the paradox?

It's in the is-ough gap.

If the gap holds then believing that X is wrong doesn't imply that we ought not do X.

"Wrongness" isn't even a word. And "is-ought" is a philosopher's term invented by David Hume *ya know, philosophy that thing that you insist UNDERMINES TRUTH!! viewtopic.php?t=40088

What you are stating to me is that someone acting against their moral principles is a paradox. You are being ridiculous.

[Skepdick]

"Wrongness" isn't even a word. And "is-ought" is a philosopher's term invented by David Hume *ya know, philosophy that thing that you insist UNDERMINES TRUTH!! viewtopic.php?t=40088

I am literally demonstrating how it undermines truth.

If "wrongness" isn't a word then it just became one - I invented it.

What you are stating to me is that someone acting against their moral principles is a paradox. You are being ridiculous.

I am not making any unconditional statements so you are definitely confused. The ridiculousness is all yours...

[attofishpi]

What you are stating to me is that someone acting against their moral principles is a paradox. You are being ridiculous.

I am not making any unconditional statements so you are definitely confused.

I've got better things to do tonight Skeppy - you are logically fucked if you think that someone acting against their moral principles is a paradox.

[Skepdick]

I've got better things to do tonight Skeppy - you are logically fucked if you think that someone acting against their moral principles is a paradox.

Good. Then I am not "logically fucked", but I am puzzled as to why you are using the word "against".

Why is aborting babies "against" believing that abortion is wrong?

One is a moral opinion and the other one is an action. Are you saying the two are connected? Tell us more

[Iwannaplato]

I've got better things to do tonight Skeppy - you are logically fucked if you think that someone acting against their moral principles is a paradox.

What if we shift from moral principals to values?
So, in your example, the doctor has moral values around abortion in the negative and positive values in relation to money and the latter win out. But Skepdick's second OP, after changes, says that the doctor thinks it is always wrong. IOW no value can override that value. Yes, he loves money but he values abortion negatively to such a degree that nothing can override that. That's how I am taking the meaning of ALWAYS in the OP.

The reason I shifted to values, is because, sure, people go against their moral values because they also value other things and those latter can win out. But if we call all these things values, then there is a contradiction.

It's not a paradox. People lie to others and lie to themselves. But he is going against his expressed values.

And if he is, then one can question if he has those values. Actions speaking louder than words.

There are people who think they aren't ___________________-[whatever: racist, sexist, childhating....] who speak against these things, but then act themselves (otherwise) just like racist, sexist, whatever people.

How should we determine their actual value/belief? By what they say or by what they do?

Now in reality we tend to be mixed creatures. So one can value X and also value anti-X. We are not homogenous monads, however much we like to present ourselves as having just one belief, attitude, set of actions on an issue.

I believe X. I value X postively. [period] Like it's an on/off switch. When in fact their are degrees of beliefs/values and we contain contradictory parts or 'parts' with different beliefs and values, which can lead to all sorts of actions.

And I suppose it might be good, though perhaps not for Skepdick's goals, to mention cognitive dissonance.

[Skepdick]

Actions speaking louder than words.

Everything else you've said not being discarded. This is a value-statement.

Holding that value impacts how you interpret the situation. His actions contradict his words.

If you hold an alternative value (words speak louder than actions). Then his words contradict his actions.

In both cases there's a "disagreement".

Over and above the disagreement you need to resolve: whether actions speak louder than words; or words speak louder than actions.

[iambiguous]

I did respond:

Well, first we would need to ask him or her why he or she does what he or she says is wrong.

Why would you even ask such a question, unless you think that believing X is wrong implies you shouldn't do X?

But if you believe such an implication exists then you are violating the is-ought gap.

Again, in regard to the morality of abortion, my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind -- "here and now" -- is explored in the OP of this thread: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

On the other hand, if I come across someone who professes to believe that abortion is wrong -- is objectively immoral -- but he/she continues to perform them, well, of course I'm going to be curious as to why.

Is the doctor a hypocrite? Is someone pointing a gun at the doctor and saying "abort or else"?

The doctor doesn't understand your question.

Are you suggesting that a belief in the wrongness of abortion implies that one shouldn't perform abortions?

What's the connection between these two things?

We clearly think this through in different ways. The doctor claims that abortion is immoral but continues to perform them. Now, if I were the doctor, I would perform the abortion because I believe that, existentially, women have the right to obtain an abortion. But I would note to the woman that I also believe in turn that abortion is the killing of a human baby.

How do I reconcile this? I can't. Why? Because in regard to morality here in a No God world "I" am drawn and quartered.

On the other hand, if I were a doctor who believed that abortion is objectively immoral but performed them anyway, why would I do so? Well, what popped into my head is that someone is threatening to kill me if I don't perform the abortion. Or maybe someone knows something about me I want no one else to know and he is holding that over my head. Or maybe I tell those around me that I believe abortion is immoral only out of political expediency. But behind the curtain I do perform them.

Then this part...

But more to the point [mine] there is a crucial difference between everyone being able to agree that a particular woman had a particular abortion when in fact she did have it and [philosophically] confronting the fact that some people argue that abortion is moral while others argue that it is immoral.

Why are you diluting all the context we've established with this recontextualization attempt?

Note to others:

You tell me what on Earth this means. Given the points I make above.

That's the part that interests me. In other words, why it seems considerably more problematic that an agreement can be reached regarding the morality of abortion as opposed to the fact of one.

I am not sure what any of that achieves for you.

Suppose that the doctor agrees with you that it's wrong. And suppose even that it's a fact that abortion is wrong.

And then the doctor still performs an abortion.

What of it?

Again, all I can do is iterate my points above.

Given your assumptions, I'll still go with my assumptions above. Someone or something is [for whatever reason] compelling him or her to do what he or she insists is immoral.

[Lacewing]

Someone or something is [for whatever reason] compelling him or her to do what he or she insists is immoral.

This makes sense.

I think the problem with this thread is that Skepdick keeps trying to frame it in terms of 'agreement' or 'disagreement', which seems nonsensical. Even to the point of accusing people of agreeing or disagreeing with themselves!

People do things all the time against their beliefs or better judgment which has nothing to do with agreement/disagreement. It's about choice and reasons.

The topic title doesn't fit the content.