10k Philosophy challenge

[Harbal]

Well, empathy clearly isn't reliable, either. It can go wrong very easily. So you'd have to conclude, then, that there really is no such "way to evaluate."

I don't really know what "reliable" and "go wrong" mean in reference to empathy,

I think you do. You know, for example, that the women empathetic to a Charles Manson, or the people who have empathy for Che Guevera and run around wearing t-shirts of a man who shot Cuban dissidents into ditches, you know that empathy has gone wrong.

I know about Charles Manson, but nothing about these women you say have empathy for him. If they are drawn to him in some way, what reason do you have for calling that empathy? I remember the Che Guevara posters from when I was a teenager; they were a very familiar sight in the 70s, but I had no idea who he was, other than a vague notion that he was a revolutionary, but I was no better off for knowing that, as I didn't really know what a revolutionary was. I suspect the women you refer to were in pretty much the same position. Again, you call it empathy, whereas in reality they probably just found the image sexy. I still don't really know who Che Guevara was, or what he actually did, and I have a feeling that most of those who wore T-shirts with his image on them didn't know, either. In other words, all this is a complete irrelevance.

In which case you have lost the element of rationality, because abortion isn't murder when carried out legally.

It's never "legal" in an ultimate sense. It's always against the Law of God,

The law of God has no higher status than the law of IC, or the law of Harbal; it is only binding on those who, for some strange reason, might want to subject themselves to it.

. And it's against conscience, too...as the abortionists own rhetoric so often makes clear, when they wince at being told the details of what they're doing,

And I am pleased to hear that they do wince, as I do when I think about it. But the fact remains that I wince even harder at the thought of a woman being compelled to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. The abortion is the lesser of two "evils".

And why do abortionists never want women to see the baby they're considering killing?

Who are the abortionists, exactly? Are they the people who carry out the abortion, or just those who advocate its availability? Anyway, why would a woman want to see the baby/foetus she is having aborted? I would guess that many women find the decision distressing enough, without voluntarily making the ordeal worse for themselves.

But they know what it really is. We all know. As Jay Budziszewski the ethicist has put it, "those who pretend not to are merely playing pretend, and doing it badly."

I fully understand the moral implications of abortion, as I'm sure most people do, but you do not seem to understand the moral implication of forcing women to have children they do not want to have.

Human laws can't make evil good. That's only to make an evil law...of which there are many and well know instances.

I don't know anything about "evil" laws, or "evil" anything else, but I do have an understanding of good and bad laws, and I happen to think that the law permitting abortion is a good law.

But a description chosen specifically for its emotive quality,

No; just for its accuracy and clarity.

You are being dishonest. We both know perfectly well what the reason for your choice of description was.

But if you could even conceive of things like justice and fairness without having a sense of empathy in the first place, and I'm not sure that one could, why would you actually care about them?

Maybe you wouldn't. Many people don't. But they know they're wrong, too. We all know what fairness and justice look like: a toddler, deprived of her toy, will scream "No fair!" And toddlers are notoriously unempathetic creatures, as you'll know from raising a child.

I asked a question, and whatever you call your response to it, it in no way resembles a sensible answer.

But that's what those irrelevant tummy pains you mentioned were; your desire to right a wrong.

No pain. Just the calm realization of an injustice, and a normal desire to see the right thing done.

Yes, the desire has to be there, or nothing tends to get done, does it?

Recognising inequality and exploitation may well involve rational thought, but caring about them requires emotion.

The caring's optional.

Ask anybody who's experiencing an injustice if they'd rather have a) somebody who feels deeply for them and does nothing, or b) somebody who makes it right, whether he feels anything or not.

Can I also ask them who is more likely to help them; the one who cares, or the one who doesn't?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't really know what "reliable" and "go wrong" mean in reference to empathy,

I think you do. You know, for example, that the women empathetic to a Charles Manson, or the people who have empathy for Che Guevera and run around wearing t-shirts of a man who shot Cuban dissidents into ditches, you know that empathy has gone wrong.

I know about Charles Manson, but nothing about these women you say have empathy for him. If they are drawn to him in some way, what reason do you have for calling that empathy? I remember the Che Guevara posters from when I was a teenager; they were a very familiar sight in the 70s, but I had no idea who he was, other than a vague notion that he was a revolutionary, but I was no better off for knowing that, as I didn't really know what a revolutionary was. I suspect the women you refer to were in pretty much the same position. Again, you call it empathy, whereas in reality they probably just found the image sexy. I still don't really know who Che Guevara was, or what he actually did, and I have a feeling that most of those who wore T-shirts with his image on them didn't know, either. In other words, all this is a complete irrelevance.

What you're talking about is the ignorance of the people who are empathetic. And that is exactly the problem I'm pointing out: whatever feelings of "empathy" they think they're having, they're not well-grounded in reality or fact. Their feelings may be no more deeply felt than yours or mine...but they're totally misguided, badly informed, wrongly directed and foolish, as we can both recognize.

That's why it's not irrelevant at all. The mere having of empathetic feelings tells us absolutely nothing about the quality or value of the object to which they are being directed. All they tell you is that the person is in a high state of emotion...not that they're being wise or getting their feelings to line up with something morally good.

In which case you have lost the element of rationality, because abortion isn't murder when carried out legally.

It's never "legal" in an ultimate sense. It's always against the Law of God,

The law of God has no higher status than the law of IC,...

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I'm undeserving of the equivalency you attribute to me with the Supreme Being.

Objective facts stay objective facts. And there are objective moral facts. Were it not so, there could never be any such thing as a society making an immoral law. But you and I know that such things do indeed happen, all the time. What were the slave laws in the old South of the UK or US, for example? What were Hitler's Judenrein laws?

What about the laws that banned abortion, since you care to defend it? Would you regard a ban on all abortions as being an immoral law? But if the law itself determines ultimately what's right and wrong, then how can you?

. And it's against conscience, too...as the abortionists own rhetoric so often makes clear, when they wince at being told the details of what they're doing,

And I am pleased to hear that they do wince, as I do when I think about it.

Why wince? You say it's perfectly fine. But if it's one of two possible evils, what about adoption? Is that evil?

And why do abortionists never want women to see the baby they're considering killing?

Who are the abortionists, exactly?

Planned Parenthood, for example. But so is every woman who participates, of course. Anyway, why would a woman want to see the baby/foetus she is having aborted?

For the same reason she would want to look at her x-ray to see how her cancer is progressing, or her CT scan, to see how a bone is set -- so as to make a properly-informed choice, of course.

Why would a woman be opposed to more information, if "choice" is what's at stake? But she knows it's not: she knows in her heart that she's killing her child.

And thus, the truth is, these women don't WANT to be informed. They don't want to see the little hands and feet of somebody who shares half her genetic material, and looks a little like Uncle Frank. And the abortionists don't want women to see what they're doing; it would make most of them stop cold. And the abortuaries are making way, way too much money for that. So both have a stake in minimizing information. And the last thing either of them wants is for the woman to become conscious of the choice she's really making.

After all, it's one thing to think you "got rid of a cluster of cells," and quite another to know you killed your own child.

...you do not seem to understand the moral implication of forcing women to have children they do not want to have.

Women already have a choice. It's the choice to be promiscuous or not, or to use contraception or not, or to be responsible or not, or to give up a child for adoption or not. That's a whole lot of choice.

When does the baby get to make hers?

Human laws can't make evil good. That's only to make an evil law...of which there are many and well know instances.

I don't know anything about "evil" laws, or "evil" anything else, but I do have an understanding of good and bad laws,...

That doesn't really make sense. How is a "bad" law not an "evil" law? And how do you see the old laws of servitude and slavery?

But a description chosen specifically for its emotive quality,

No; just for its accuracy and clarity.

You are being dishonest.

No, I'm being literal. That's all.

But if you could even conceive of things like justice and fairness without having a sense of empathy in the first place, and I'm not sure that one could, why would you actually care about them?

Maybe you wouldn't. Many people don't. But they know they're wrong, too. We all know what fairness and justice look like: a toddler, deprived of her toy, will scream "No fair!" And toddlers are notoriously unempathetic creatures, as you'll know from raising a child.

I asked a question, and whatever you call your response to it, it in no way resembles a sensible answer.

Then you're not thinking clearly. A child still has a sense of fairness, even when they have no empathy. It's not because of empathy that the toddler is able to recognize when things aren't fair.

But that's what those irrelevant tummy pains you mentioned were; your desire to right a wrong.

No pain. Just the calm realization of an injustice, and a normal desire to see the right thing done.

Yes, the desire has to be there, or nothing tends to get done, does it?

Empathy is not the source of that desire.

Recognising inequality and exploitation may well involve rational thought, but caring about them requires emotion.

The caring's optional.

Ask anybody who's experiencing an injustice if they'd rather have a) somebody who feels deeply for them and does nothing, or b) somebody who makes it right, whether he feels anything or not.

Can I also ask them who is more likely to help them; the one who cares, or the one who doesn't?

Yes, sure. You can do what you like. And ask them if they want it to be somebody with just lots of gushy feelings, or somebody with a proper sense of justice and a strategy to make it happen.

[bahman]

Hello, my name is Daniel McKay and I'm a philosopher from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

I am offering a prize of $10,000 to anyone who can solve a philosophy problem that I have spent the better part of a decade working on. The problem of how to weigh freedom over different things within the normative theory of freedom consequentialism.

This challenge is open to everyone, so feel free to share this around your departments and to anyone else who might be interested.

The rules for receiving the money are listed below, and the problem itself is detailed in a word document you can find here

Rules:
* All solutions to the problem of weighing freedom over different things must adhere to these rules in order to be eligible for the prize money.
* All solutions must be compatible with freedom consequentialism and associated assumptions, as outlined in the freedom consequentialism primer provided and its referenced sources.
* All solutions must be sent to fcphilosophyprize@gmail.com
* Any questions and clarifications can also be sent to fcphilosophyprize@gmail.com
* Whether a solution is successful will be determined exclusively by me and my decision is final.
* If multiple people send in a successful solution, the prize money will go to the first person to do so.
* Partial solutions or referrals will receive a partial payout based on how helpful they are.
* The prize is $10,000 in total. If partial solutions are provided and paid out, that will reduce the total prize pool by the corresponding amount. Information on how much money is remaining will be provided in an auto reply to emails sent to fcphilosophyprize@gmail.com
* As I live in New Zealand, the $10,000 is in New Zealand Dollars.
* I will reassess the prize money, both whether to keep offering it and how much it is, each year. Current information will be in an auto reply to emails sent to fcphilosophyprize@gmail.com
* Solutions do not need to follow the Preferential Order Method outlined in the primer as my current preferred method of solving the problem of weighing freedom, but solutions that follow a different method should explain why that method is better and how it solves the problem of weighing freedom over different things.
* Any other problems or comments are welcome, but will not receive any money.

Could you formalize your question in a few sentences?

[Harbal]

I think you do. You know, for example, that the women empathetic to a Charles Manson, or the people who have empathy for Che Guevera and run around wearing t-shirts of a man who shot Cuban dissidents into ditches, you know that empathy has gone wrong.

I know about Charles Manson, but nothing about these women you say have empathy for him. If they are drawn to him in some way, what reason do you have for calling that empathy? I remember the Che Guevara posters from when I was a teenager; they were a very familiar sight in the 70s, but I had no idea who he was, other than a vague notion that he was a revolutionary, but I was no better off for knowing that, as I didn't really know what a revolutionary was. I suspect the women you refer to were in pretty much the same position. Again, you call it empathy, whereas in reality they probably just found the image sexy. I still don't really know who Che Guevara was, or what he actually did, and I have a feeling that most of those who wore T-shirts with his image on them didn't know, either. In other words, all this is a complete irrelevance.

What you're talking about is the ignorance of the people who are empathetic. And that is exactly the problem I'm pointing out: whatever feelings of "emp

athy" they think they're having, they're not well-grounded in reality or fact. Their feelings may be no more deeply felt than yours or mine...but they're totally misguided, badly informed, wrongly directed and foolish, as we can both recognize.

I don't see the phenomenon of women being drawn to mass murderers as a matter of empathy. Please stop insulting my intelligence.

That's why it's not irrelevant at all.

It is totally irrelevant, and you know it.

The law of God has no higher status than the law of IC,...

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I'm undeserving of the equivalency you attribute to me with the Supreme Being.

Not at all, and I assure you that I find you both equally impressive.

Objective facts stay objective facts. And there are objective moral facts.

I know some people believe that, but I am not one of them.

Were it not so, there could never be any such thing as a society making an immoral law. But you and I know that such things do indeed happen, all the time. What were the slave laws in the old South of the UK or US, for example? What were Hitler's Judenrein laws?

I assume they were morally right in the opinion of those who made them, at the time they were made. You and I do not think they were morally good, which goes to show that morality is a matter of opinion.

What about the laws that banned abortion, since you care to defend it? Would you regard a ban on all abortions as being an immoral law? But if the law itself determines ultimately what's right and wrong, then how can you?

Yes, I would regard a law that bans abortion as being immoral, but unlike the law, I do not have the authority to enforce my moral opinion. The fact that I am able to recognise the authority of the law while at the same time not agreeing with the law in some specific instance proves, or suggests, what, exactly?

And I am pleased to hear that they do wince, as I do when I think about it.

Why wince? You say it's perfectly fine. But if it's one of two possible evils, what about adoption? Is that evil?

I don't say it is fine at all, but I think the alternative is worse. If adoption is what those concerned decide is the preferable course, then fine.

Anyway, why would a woman want to see the baby/foetus she is having aborted?

For the same reason she would want to look at her x-ray to see how her cancer is progressing, or her CT scan, to see how a bone is set -- so as to make a properly-informed choice, of course.

Well if the woman wanted to see it, then I don't see why she shouldn't, but I really wouldn't expect it in most cases.

Why would a woman be opposed to more information, if "choice" is what's at stake? But she knows it's not: she knows in her heart that she's killing her child.

I'm pretty sure she will also know it in her head, but I don't know what point you think you are making.

And thus, the truth is, these women don't WANT to be informed. They don't want to see the little hands and feet of somebody who shares half her genetic material, and looks a little like Uncle Frank. And the abortionists don't want women to see what they're doing; it would make most of them stop cold. And the abortuaries are making way, way too much money for that. So both have a stake in minimizing information. And the last thing either of them wants is for the woman to become conscious of the choice she's really making.

I thought emotion and sentimentality had no place in morality.

And, btw, abortions are carried out by the NHS in the UK, and nobody makes money from them. The hospital staff get paid, of course, but you know what I mean.

After all, it's one thing to think you "got rid of a cluster of cells," and quite another to know you killed your own child.

Exactly, and I imagine it is an agonising decision for many, which is why the last thing they need is a load of virtue signalling busybodies trying to make them feel even worse.

...you do not seem to understand the moral implication of forcing women to have children they do not want to have.

Women already have a choice. It's the choice to be promiscuous or not, or to use contraception or not, or to be responsible or not, or to give up a child for adoption or not. That's a whole lot of choice.

A whole lot of choice that is, and should be, theirs, and most certainly not yours.

When does the baby get to make hers?

Not my department; I suggest you speak to henry about that.

I don't know anything about "evil" laws, or "evil" anything else, but I do have an understanding of good and bad laws,...

That doesn't really make sense. How is a "bad" law not an "evil" law? And how do you see the old laws of servitude and slavery?

I might use the word, "evil", occasionally as an adjective meaning something malicious, but I don't recognise it as a concept in the way you seem to, so I think it is best avoided. I consider the law that allowed slavery to have been a bad law, but had I been alive at the time, and living in the American South, I may have thought it a good law. I would like to think not, but who knows?

I asked a question, and whatever you call your response to it, it in no way resembles a sensible answer.

Then you're not thinking clearly. A child still has a sense of fairness, even when they have no empathy. It's not because of empathy that the toddler is able to recognize when things aren't fair.

Toddlers don't so much recognise, but more just assume that absolutely anything that happens to them that they don't like is unfair. You are the one not thinking clearly.

Yes, the desire has to be there, or nothing tends to get done, does it?

Empathy is not the source of that desire.

Desire is an emotion, and you have banned emotion from participating in morality.

Can I also ask them who is more likely to help them; the one who cares, or the one who doesn't?

Yes, sure. You can do what you like. And ask them if they want it to be somebody with just lots of gushy feelings, or somebody with a proper sense of justice and a strategy to make it happen.

Yes, someone with a sense of justice and a strategy sounds good.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see the phenomenon of women being drawn to mass murderers as a matter of empathy.

Well, it clearly is. They feel very sorry for the poor chaps. Empathetic, no doubt...sane, hardly.

But it wouldn't matter, because examples can be multiplied. Remember Che? And how about people who empathized with Jussie Smollett?

Objective facts stay objective facts. And there are objective moral facts.

I know some people believe that, but I am not one of them.

Yes, but that won't change the facts.

Were it not so, there could never be any such thing as a society making an immoral law. But you and I know that such things do indeed happen, all the time. What were the slave laws in the old South of the UK or US, for example? What were Hitler's Judenrein laws?

I assume they were morally right in the opinion of those who made them, at the time they were made. You and I do not think they were morally good, which goes to show that morality is a matter of opinion.

Non sequitur. It shows we are right, and they were wrong.

The fact that I am able to recognise the authority of the law while at the same time not agreeing with the law in some specific instance proves, or suggests, what, exactly?

If your disagreement is just a matter of choice or convenience, nothing. But if it is, as you assert, a moral issue, then it shows that even you believe there is such a thing as an "immoral" law -- and then you can't any longer make the case that law makes morality.

And I am pleased to hear that they do wince, as I do when I think about it.

Why wince? You say it's perfectly fine. But if it's one of two possible evils, what about adoption? Is that evil?

I don't say it is fine at all, but I think the alternative is worse.

Adoption is worse than murder, you think?

Anyway, why would a woman want to see the baby/foetus she is having aborted?

For the same reason she would want to look at her x-ray to see how her cancer is progressing, or her CT scan, to see how a bone is set -- so as to make a properly-informed choice, of course.

Well if the woman wanted to see it, then I don't see why she shouldn't, but I really wouldn't expect it in most cases.

Why not? You'd expect it in every other medical matter.

But you know why. It would be too much true information. Abortion rates would drop like a stone, if women had to see what they were actually doing.

Why would a woman be opposed to more information, if "choice" is what's at stake? But she knows it's not: she knows in her heart that she's killing her child.

I'm pretty sure she will also know it in her head, but I don't know what point you think you are making.

Very simple. People who advocate abortion are advocating something they know is immoral.

And thus, the truth is, these women don't WANT to be informed. They don't want to see the little hands and feet of somebody who shares half her genetic material, and looks a little like Uncle Frank. And the abortionists don't want women to see what they're doing; it would make most of them stop cold. And the abortuaries are making way, way too much money for that. So both have a stake in minimizing information. And the last thing either of them wants is for the woman to become conscious of the choice she's really making.

I thought emotion and sentimentality had no place in morality.

I never said "no place." I simply pointed out that having an emotional fit doesn't tell us anything about the actual morality of the situation. We need our brains to do some work, if only to know what's causing the emotional upset. Then we make a judgment about whether the feeling is justified or not.

And, btw, abortions are carried out by the NHS in the UK, and nobody makes money from them.

Really? You're sure? I'll bet if you check you'll find out differently. But in that case, you'd a whole lot different from the US. Abortion is big industry there.

After all, it's one thing to think you "got rid of a cluster of cells," and quite another to know you killed your own child.

Exactly, and I imagine it is an agonising decision for many,

Why? You say it's just a cluster of cells.

But you know better.

...you do not seem to understand the moral implication of forcing women to have children they do not want to have.

Women already have a choice. It's the choice to be promiscuous or not, or to use contraception or not, or to be responsible or not, or to give up a child for adoption or not. That's a whole lot of choice.

A whole lot of choice that is, and should be, theirs, and most certainly not yours.

How about the baby's? Women have had various choices, and it's included making a baby. When does the baby get to count?

I asked a question, and whatever you call your response to it, it in no way resembles a sensible answer.

Then you're not thinking clearly. A child still has a sense of fairness, even when they have no empathy. It's not because of empathy that the toddler is able to recognize when things aren't fair.

Toddlers don't so much recognise, but more just assume that absolutely anything that happens to them that they don't like is unfair.

If that's so, why do they recognize unfairness? Try giving an ice cream to one of your toddlers, and not to the other, and you'll know what they know about fairness.

Desire is an emotion,

No, desire is a motivation, not an emotion. Desire is always for something, and the quality of that thing can be judged. Emotion is just emotion. Nobody can make you wrong or right for feeling something; they can only make you wrong or right for what you do with it.

[Harbal]

The fact that I am able to recognise the authority of the law while at the same time not agreeing with the law in some specific instance proves, or suggests, what, exactly?

If your disagreement is just a matter of choice or convenience, nothing. But if it is, as you assert, a moral issue, then it shows that even you believe there is such a thing as an "immoral" law -- and then you can't any longer make the case that law makes morality.

I don't remember trying to make a case that "law makes morality". I don't even know what that means.

I don't say it is fine at all, but I think the alternative is worse.

Adoption is worse than murder, you think?

Compelling a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is morally worse than providing her with a legal abortion. That's what I think.

Well if the woman wanted to see it, then I don't see why she shouldn't, but I really wouldn't expect it in most cases.

Why not? You'd expect it in every other medical matter.

But you know why. It would be too much true information. Abortion rates would drop like a stone, if women had to see what they were actually doing.

But that might lead her to make a moral decision based on her emotional response, which you have committed yourself to disapproving of.

Why would a woman be opposed to more information, if "choice" is what's at stake? But she knows it's not: she knows in her heart that she's killing her child.

I'm pretty sure she will also know it in her head, but I don't know what point you think you are making.

Very simple. People who advocate abortion are advocating something they know is immoral.

That doesn't make sense. Non sequitur, as you would say. But you are being irrelevant again. When have I ever said that people don't do things they consider immoral?

I thought emotion and sentimentality had no place in morality.

I never said "no place." I simply pointed out that having an emotional fit doesn't tell us anything about the actual morality of the situation. We need our brains to do some work, if only to know what's causing the emotional upset. Then we make a judgment about whether the feeling is justified or not.

Yes, sometimes some thinking is called for, but that can only help you establish where something lies in relation to some moral principle or other; the principle itself, and the value you place upon it, will be grounded on your emotional attitude towards it. Unless you are a religious dogmatist, or something.

And, btw, abortions are carried out by the NHS in the UK, and nobody makes money from them.

Really? You're sure? I'll bet if you check you'll find out differently. But in that case, you'd a whole lot different from the US. Abortion is big industry there.

Well there are private clinics, but abortions are generally carried out, free of charge, by the NHS. Why don't you check?

Exactly, and I imagine it is an agonising decision for many,

Why? You say it's just a cluster of cells.

Yes, I have said that, but in the context of how cruel abortion might be. My point being that the cluster of cells would be incapable of experiencing distress. It is not for me to say what that cluster of cells might represent in the mind of the woman carrying them, but I can guess.

A whole lot of choice that is, and should be, theirs, and most certainly not yours.

How about the baby's? Women have had various choices, and it's included making a baby. When does the baby get to count?

If a developing baby under 24 weeks (the cut off point for legal abortion in the UK) were able to express an opinion, I feel sure that opinion would be allowed for in the abortion laws.

Desire is an emotion,

No, desire is a motivation, not an emotion. Desire is always for something, and the quality of that thing can be judged. Emotion is just emotion. Nobody can make you wrong or right for feeling something; they can only make you wrong or right for what you do with it.

Yes, it would have been more accurate to have described desire as an emotional state, rather than an emotion.

[Daniel McKay]

What's that reason?

That if we don't believe that right and wrong exists, we might do something wrong. So to the extent that we should do anything, we should act as though morality exists.

Well that looks like a coward's excuse to me, not an actual reason. Why not just say that humanity should act morally because not only is that the best for us, in fact there is no alternative? Either morality or guaranteed self-destruction. Genuine moral realism isn't even really needed, just a quasi-realism with subjectivist roots.

But more importantly, that didn't address my question. Why should I expect that freedoms can be weighed objectively, but the quality of omelettes can't be?

As to the first point: Acting morally is likely often not going to be best for us, especially not at an individual level. Morality and self-interest often conflict. It certainly isn't required in order to avoid self-destruction, as there are plenty of systems we could employ to do that which would not be moral. I'm not really sure what you find cowardly about that. It is simply pragmatic. There are other arguments for moral realism as well, but this is the one I tend to find most persausive.

As to the second, I think I did answer that. In the case of morality, we have some reason to think it might exist objectively. In the case of some objective standard of omelettes, we don't.

[Daniel McKay]

Dan, you want the omelet without the cook. Hell, you want the egg without the chicken. Shoes without cobblers, watches without watchmakers. And, yes, you want the Yardstick without the Yardstick Maker.

You want slavery to be wrong just becuz. You want rape to be wrong just as a matter of brute fact. You want morality set by an amoral, unthinking universe.

As I say: your project has already failed.

Good luck, have fun, watch out for bears.

First of all, we don't have a cook/watchmaker/chicken, so we're going to have to do without anyway. Second of all, I don't want morality to be "set" at all. The truth isn't decided, it just is.

[Daniel McKay]

Well it seems to me that we come into the world with a capacity for having moral attitudes; we are hard wired for it, you might say, but the attitudes themselves are not hard wired. We seem to accumulate those as we go through life, but I disagree that reasoned analysis has much, if anything, to do with the process. We pick up our moral attitudes from our parents, and from our society in general, without even questioning them, although we may well do that later in life. I'm pretty old, and way back when I was young, sex outside marriage and homosexually were morally wrong as far as my society was concerned, but that is no longer the case. I wouldn't say that is because we subjected the matter to rational analysis, but quite the opposite; we just came to realise that there was no rational basis for that attitude towards those things. And think of things like incest, where there is a rational reason for inhibiting it. Most of us avoid it because we have an emotional aversion to it, not at all because of any rational reason not to engage in it. Maybe I'm overlooking something, and you can explain the part that reasoned analysis plays in morality.

First of all, "realizing we had no rational basis for that attitude towards those things" sounds like reasoned analysis to me, and we have in fact engaged in most moral progress due, at least in part to reasoned analysis (I'll admit that the widening of the empathetic circle has certainly been useful). The argument that "you are willing to give rights to these people and we are not relevantly different from them, so you should give rights to us" has done a lot of work over the years.

Second, what is true and what people believe are not the same thing. People can have whatever attitudes they like, but that doesn't make those attitudes correct. When society thought homosexuality and sex outside marriage was wrong, they were incorrect. There is difference to be drawn between general attitudes towards right and wrong, and right and wrong themselves. People might do things for all sorts of silly reasons, but so much the worse for them.

[Daniel McKay]

So, the kind of freedom that freedom consequentialism is concerned with is specifically freedom over those choices that belong to the person in question. The choices that belong to a person, or the choices a person has a “right” to make if you prefer, are the ones over those things that they own, specifically their mind, body, and property.

This looks pretty specific and will also have to be somehow written into the fabric of all possible worlds. Will it work with cultures and species that have no concept of ownership? Can slaves be property?

To the first point, yes. Assuming that it is possible to own things at all, then this isn't contingent on people knowing this fact.

To the second, no. People aren't property. A person can only ever be owned by themself.

[Daniel McKay]

Could you formalize your question in a few sentences?

I mean, no. That's why I wrote a whole thing, because the context is necessary to understand the question. But I can give you it in a nutshell.

How does FC resolve conflicts between different persons that involve violations of different kinds of freedom? For example, how do we determine how many persons' sight we should save over one person's life?

Hope that helps.

[henry quirk]

You want the cake without the Baker.

Good luck. Have Fun. Watch out for bears.

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that I am able to recognise the authority of the law while at the same time not agreeing with the law in some specific instance proves, or suggests, what, exactly?

If your disagreement is just a matter of choice or convenience, nothing. But if it is, as you assert, a moral issue, then it shows that even you believe there is such a thing as an "immoral" law -- and then you can't any longer make the case that law makes morality.

I don't remember trying to make a case that "law makes morality". I don't even know what that means.

It was you who said that abortion is moral because it's legal. You said that makes it not murder. Well, if the legal is the same as moral, then everything done by the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists...all "moral," by your definition.

I don't say it is fine at all, but I think the alternative is worse.

Adoption is worse than murder, you think?

Compelling a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is morally worse than providing her with a legal abortion.

She's chosen to create a child. Do you think that giving her permission to murder her child will make her choice better?

Well if the woman wanted to see it, then I don't see why she shouldn't, but I really wouldn't expect it in most cases.

Why not? You'd expect it in every other medical matter.

But you know why. It would be too much true information. Abortion rates would drop like a stone, if women had to see what they were actually doing.

But that might lead her to make a moral decision based on her emotional response,

It would lead her to make a moral decision based on the truth. If it comes with a moral reaction, so much the better.

I'm pretty sure she will also know it in her head, but I don't know what point you think you are making.

Very simple. People who advocate abortion are advocating something they know is immoral.

When have I ever said that people don't do things they consider immoral?

You haven't. And sure they do; in this case, they know full well it is. As do you.

I thought emotion and sentimentality had no place in morality.

I never said "no place." I simply pointed out that having an emotional fit doesn't tell us anything about the actual morality of the situation. We need our brains to do some work, if only to know what's causing the emotional upset. Then we make a judgment about whether the feeling is justified or not.

Yes, sometimes some thinking is called for,

Sometimes? How are you going to know whether the feelings are justified, if you don't think?

And, btw, abortions are carried out by the NHS in the UK, and nobody makes money from them.

Really? You're sure? I'll bet if you check you'll find out differently. But in that case, you'd a whole lot different from the US. Abortion is big industry there.

Well there are private clinics, but abortions are generally carried out, free of charge, by the NHS.

Well, the NHS is paid for their services...probably out of your taxes, and I'll bet you find out they make a good margin on it. Also, find out what they do with the biological "waste" (i.e. the baby's body parts). I'll warrant you they sell them...and at a tidy profit.

[Atla]

As to the second, I think I did answer that. In the case of morality, we have some reason to think it might exist objectively. In the case of some objective standard of omelettes, we don't.

You don't understand the epic inconsistency in your position. Never mind.

[Daniel McKay]

As to the second, I think I did answer that. In the case of morality, we have some reason to think it might exist objectively. In the case of some objective standard of omelettes, we don't.

You don't understand the epic inconsistency in your position. Never mind.

It isn't inconsistent to think that some things are objective and others are subjective.