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

[Skepdick]

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.

Your unability to fit the content into the frame is part and parcel of the problem of mixing up what terms connote; and what terms denote.

If you understood agreement/disagreement in a more abstract/metaphorical/qualitative sense you'd see it as nothing other than a contradiction.

Performative, verbal or contrary to the implications of one's stated principles.

[Skepdick]

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.

Your curiosity is nothing but a function of your social programming.

You have deep pre-conceptions about morality; and what right and wrong mean and entail.

I'm simply deconstructing those connotations and reducing them to denotations. Ontological cause and effect. What is believing in X supposed to cause in terms of behaviour? What if the belief causes some different behaviour? What if the belief causes no behaviour?

We clearly think this through in different ways. The doctor claims that abortion is immoral but continues to perform them.

Sure. The doctor is of a peculiar mind. A mind which doesn't connect the notion of "moral wrongness" with the notion of "I am not supposed ot do this".

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.

Personally, I would perform the abortion because I don't give a shit about the ideological arguments and my patients asked me to do what is in their best interest. But that's just me - I don't let my ideology get in the way of my proffessionalism.

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.

What is there to reconcile, except your assumed implication between belief and corresponding appropriate behaviour?

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?

Why wouldn't you so do? You live in a secular country, you took an oath. It's in the best interest of your patient. Why would you let some stupid idea such as morals and ideology get in the way of doing what's best for your patients?

If you disconnect the lip service of uttering the words "abortion is wrong" from any consequence, implication or obligation thereof - anything goes.

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.

Why do you assume he's being compelled? The doctor is simply a philosopher. Perhaps he's even a little autistic. And he has some versing in logic. He simply interprets Hume's is-ought gap as a fact. You can't stat with an is and arrive at an ought. He takes this fact to heart and he interprets it so strictly that he realizes him holding a belief that abortion is wrong is a mere fact. A fact that doesn't lead to any moral oughts, obligations or prescriptions on his behaviour.

The doctor is simply parrotting "abortion is wrong" like everybody parrots "hello, how are you". Without any deeper meaning or implication to his empty words. A phrase that's merely social protocol, yet vacuous of any sentiment or emotion.

[Sculptor]

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.

Your unability to fit the content into the frame is part and parcel of the problem of mixing up what terms connote; and what terms denote.

If you understood agreement/disagreement in a more abstract/metaphorical/qualitative sense you'd see it as nothing other than a contradiction.

Performative, verbal or contrary to the implications of one's stated principles.

LOL.
Skipped Dick finally swallows the post modernist dictionary.
Priceless!

[Skepdick]

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.

Your unability to fit the content into the frame is part and parcel of the problem of mixing up what terms connote; and what terms denote.

If you understood agreement/disagreement in a more abstract/metaphorical/qualitative sense you'd see it as nothing other than a contradiction.

Performative, verbal or contrary to the implications of one's stated principles.

LOL.
Skipped Dick finally swallows the post modernist dictionary.
Priceless!

I apologise in advance for my abrasive honesty, but I didn’t quite get what you mean.

Could you take the cock out of your mouth; develop an intellect and try again?

[iambiguous]

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.

Your curiosity is nothing but a function of your social programming.

You have deep pre-conceptions about morality; and what right and wrong mean and entail.

I'm simply deconstructing those connotations and reducing them to denotations. Ontological cause and effect. What is believing in X supposed to cause in terms of behaviour? What if the belief causes some different behaviour? What if the belief causes no behaviour?

We clearly think this through in different ways. The doctor claims that abortion is immoral but continues to perform them.

Sure. The doctor is of a peculiar mind. A mind which doesn't connect the notion of "moral wrongness" with the notion of "I am not supposed ot do this".

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.

Personally, I would perform the abortion because I don't give a shit about the ideological arguments and my patients asked me to do what is in their best interest. But that's just me - I don't let my ideology get in the way of my proffessionalism.

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.

What is there to reconcile, except your assumed implication between belief and corresponding appropriate behaviour?

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?

Why wouldn't you so do? You live in a secular country, you took an oath. It's in the best interest of your patient. Why would you let some stupid idea such as morals and ideology get in the way of doing what's best for your patients?

If you disconnect the lip service of uttering the words "abortion is wrong" from any consequence, implication or obligation thereof - anything goes.

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.

Why do you assume he's being compelled? The doctor is simply a philosopher. Perhaps he's even a little autistic. And he has some versing in logic. He simply interprets Hume's is-ought gap as a fact. You can't stat with an is and arrive at an ought. He takes this fact to heart and he interprets it so strictly that he realizes him holding a belief that abortion is wrong is a mere fact. A fact that doesn't lead to any moral oughts, obligations or prescriptions on his behaviour.

The doctor is simply parrotting "abortion is wrong" like everybody parrots "hello, how are you". Without any deeper meaning or implication to his empty words. A phrase that's merely social protocol, yet vacuous of any sentiment or emotion.

Like I said, "we clearly think this through in different ways."

Really, really different ways.