The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:36 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:15 am Wouldn't it be easier just to accept that our differing views on morality are irreconcilable?

There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

Okay, let's just accept that we are unwilling to reconcile, then.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:05 am Okay, let's just accept that we are unwilling to reconcile, then.

"We" who? Are you an officially elected representative of the above-mentioned "we", or are you speaking on their behalf without their consent?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:06 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:05 am Okay, let's just accept that we are unwilling to reconcile, then.

"We" who? Are you an officially elected representative of the above-mentioned "we", or are you speaking on their behalf without their consent?

I officially represent 50% of the membership of "we".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:02 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:56 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:36 am
There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

If we are in a game of ease then it's alway easiest to be uncompromising.

Does this mean that PH and VA share common priors?
(and I'm a little hazy on what priors are, so if you could expand on that. But reading the description of the theorum it seemed like certain core beliefs have to be or come into line and it seems like they disagree on a core belief or two)

It doesn't matter if they do or don't. Assume you disagree about your priors and recursively iterate to reconcile those.

There are a number of strategies. Easiest one is to simply start with the principle of maximum entropy: Zero a priori knowledge/belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy

When done reconciling priors. Re-focus on reconciling views.

Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.
Or we'll abandon both our views and synthesise a new one we both land at.

But, of course - it's much easier to be uncompromising than it is to reconcile views.

It seems like this statement...

There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

should be something like
There's no such thing as two people who cannot reconcile.

I say this becuase if the process of reconciiation requires changing your views, in some cases not simply on the bone on contention but also including priors which it seems are also views, then the views did not reconcile, the people in question changed their minds about a bunch of stuff.

Or?

Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.

So, it is always possible to demonstrate which view is more wrong?

But, of course - it's much easier to be uncompromising than it is to reconcile views.

I think this can be true, but I think it can also be false. I think it depends, for example, on your personality. Further I think sometimes it has been better, for me for example, to be uncompromising. If that's your one tool, well, that'll probably limit you ability to do many things. If you lack that tool, there are certain things you won't be able to accomplish and you are likely to get used by other people.

There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile

Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:13 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:06 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:05 am Okay, let's just accept that we are unwilling to reconcile, then.

"We" who? Are you an officially elected representative of the above-mentioned "we", or are you speaking on their behalf without their consent?

I officially represent 50% of the membership of "we".

Sure, I accept that "we" are 50% willing to reconcile and 50% unwilling to reconcile.

So we are still here...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:36 am There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:27 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:13 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:06 am
"We" who? Are you an officially elected representative of the above-mentioned "we", or are you speaking on their behalf without their consent?

I officially represent 50% of the membership of "we".

So "we" are 50% willing to reconcile and 50% unwilling to reconcile.

If I was discussing some topics with Harbal, we'd probably agree to disagree at some point. And from my experience with others, that's sometimes a just peachy option. Often not the best one, but certainly sometimes.

Sometimes I think it would be better for VA and PH to just agree to disagree. Better for them. Perhaps in the most, radially minescule way, better for the world.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am It seems like this statement...

There are no such things as irreconcilable views. There's only unwillingness to reconcile.

should be something like
There's no such thing as two people who cannot reconcile.

That needs not be true. Unwillingness is sufficient to prevent reconciliation. So in principle it's possible to reconcile, but not in practice.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am I say this becuase if the process of reconciiation requires changing your views, in some cases not simply on the bone on contention but also including priors which it seems are also views, then the views did not reconcile, the people in question changed their minds about a bunch of stuff.

Or?

You don't have to change your mind. You only have to explore the alternative views/priors in parallel without committing yourself to them.

Once you are holding two distinct views in your head you are finally in a position to make a choice.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am So, it is always possible to demonstrate which view is more wrong?

If it's not possible then our views are of equal quality, so why are we disagreeing?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.

Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.

That's just a form of incompetence. Incompetence to agree.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:31 am If I was discussing some topics with Harbal, we'd probably agree to disagree at some point. And from my experience with others, that's sometimes a just peachy option. Often not the best one, but certainly sometimes.

Sometimes I think it would be better for VA and PH to just agree to disagree. Better for them. Perhaps in the most, radially minescule way, better for the world.

If that's your take away from the storm in a tea cup between VA and PH I think you've missed the point.

If there's one thing philosophy's supposed to teach you is to figure out what matters. Their disagreement is about the use of words.
It's about semantics, not morals - it's demonstration of how to be uncompromising about things that don't matter.

If you agree that murder is immoral; it doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective.
If you agree that Earth orbits the Sun; it doesn't matter whether that's fact or opinion.
If you agree that this color is blue. It's no longer relevant whether you are "right" or "wrong".

Disagreeing over what to say when you are agreeing over what to do is a strong indicator of being overly-preoccupied with the silly idea of truth.

How does Iron Man fly?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:38 am If that's your take away from the storm in a tea cup between VA and PH I think you've missed the point.

If there's one thing philosophy's supposed to teach you is to figure out what matters. Their disagreement is about the use of words.
It's about semantics, not morals - it's demonstration of how to be uncompromising about things that don't matter.

If you agree that murder is immoral; it doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective.
If you agree that Earth orbits the Sun; it doesn't matter whether that's fact or opinion.
If you agree that this color is blue. It's no longer relevant whether you are "right" or "wrong".

Disagreeing over what to say when you are agreeing over what to do is a strong indicator of being overly-preoccupied with the silly idea of truth.

Semantics is one thing but what is more critical is the psychological and ideological impulses within the contenders.

Take for example the typical theists who are gripped by the terrible fears and pains arising from the cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis. They have to cling to illusions, fictions and magical beliefs [a God-in-itself] as consonances to soothe their dissonances.
To give up their present 'delusional' beliefs will immediately allow the terrible fears and pains to surface.

Similarly, as with theists clinging to a God-in-itself, PH and gang are clinging to facts-in-themselves based on faith to soothe their terrible subliminal fears and pains arising from the cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.
To PH, what is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is [no need to justify with evidences] thus creating a reality-Gap [despite denial] which must be reconciled with correspondence theory, representational perception and the likes.
Thus for PH and Gang to give up their belief and ideology will immediately trigger terrible fears and pains to surface, thus the instant reaction of their defense mechanisms.

On the other hand, I have managed my existential crisis to a sufficient degree of efficiency that I do not have to rely on faith to believe in illusory facts-in-themselves.
Whatever I believe as objective moral facts are driven by empirical evidences verified and justified empirically via the scientific FSK tru' the moral FSK.

There is no question of reconciliation.
I believe what is needed is a change in the psychological states of moral-fact-deniers to remove the default blinkers and find alternative means to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:36 am That needs not be true. Unwillingness is sufficient to prevent reconciliation. So in principle it's possible to reconcile, but not in practice.

Agreed. My point was also that views can be incompatible, since in your model people need to move from them, some part of them, to achieve agreement. Unless the idea is that really all views are the same, that it's merely a language issue. Or some other possibility I can't think of.

You don't have to change your mind. You only have to explore the alternative views/priors in parallel without committing yourself to them.

OK, here we don't have reconciliation yet.

Once you are holding two distinct views in your head you are finally in a position to make a choice.[/quote]And here we have the potential for reconciliation, but once you choose the other person's view, you've changed your view. Or if you decide to keep yours, you've not reconciled unless the other person moved to yours.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am So, it is always possible to demonstrate which view is more wrong?

If it's not possible then our views are of equal quality, so why are we disagreeing?

Because the views are not the same.
I'm not sure we can always demonstrate to others why something is better, given different experiences and abilities, for example. Possibly this can be found by both parties and explained. I can see, at that point, if one can make clear how different abilities and experiences might mean that my model is as good, though different from the other person, to come to a place where the other person says 'OK, yours might be better, but since I haven't had those experiences, there is no reason for me to shift off mine yet.' With an emphasis on 'might'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.

Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.

How's it going here for you rapidly attaining consensus?

That's just a form of incompetence. Incompetence to agree.

I'm not sure a coyote and a squirrel can always agree. Apart from different sensory systems and goals and needs. I think people can via differing experiences and skills/perception be that significantly different.

It's impossible, on some issues, to achieve consensus with a child. You can assert authority and use power to force participation in what is not a consensus. There are simply some things the child cannot understand (hopefully yet). I think this is true between adults also. We just aren't the same, deep down really. I used to think we were. Not much anymore. Though I try to leave the door open in most situations.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:38 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:31 am If I was discussing some topics with Harbal, we'd probably agree to disagree at some point. And from my experience with others, that's sometimes a just peachy option. Often not the best one, but certainly sometimes.

Sometimes I think it would be better for VA and PH to just agree to disagree. Better for them. Perhaps in the most, radially minescule way, better for the world.

If that's your take away from the storm in a tea cup between VA and PH I think you've missed the point.

If there's one thing philosophy's supposed to teach you is to figure out what matters. Their disagreement is about the use of words.
It's about semantics, not morals - it's demonstration of how to be uncompromising about things that don't matter.

If you agree that murder is immoral; it doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective.
If you agree that Earth orbits the Sun; it doesn't matter whether that's fact or opinion.
If you agree that this color is blue. It's no longer relevant whether you are "right" or "wrong".

Disagreeing over what to say when you are agreeing over what to do is a strong indicator of being overly-preoccupied with the silly idea of truth.

I think the concern of the moral anti-realist is that if person X thinks morals are objective and demonstrated - which VA does - he cannot view his position as preference and so cannot negotiate.
I think the concern of the realist is how can I possibily get people to stop doing things I hate.

I think there is some truth to both concerns. That there is a tendency for moral realists to want to force others to do what they consider right. That there is a tendency to overaccept toxic behavior by moral anti-realists.

It need not be that way, but I think they are both on to something.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:10 pm Agreed. My point was also that views can be incompatible, since in your model people need to move from them, some part of them, to achieve agreement. Unless the idea is that really all views are the same, that it's merely a language issue. Or some other possibility I can't think of.

Language is part of the issue. Know-how is another part.

Synchronizing knowledge/information/language is a just a skill. But if you don't apply it it's the same as not having it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:10 pm

You don't have to change your mind. You only have to explore the alternative views/priors in parallel without committing yourself to them.

OK, here we don't have reconciliation yet.

Once you are holding two distinct views in your head you are finally in a position to make a choice.

And here we have the potential for reconciliation, but once you choose the other person's view, you've changed your view. Or if you decide to keep yours, you've not reconciled unless the other person moved to yours.
[/quote]
Consensus/Reconciliation. Potato/potatoh.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:10 pm Because the views are not the same.

"The same" in what respect?

If we agree THAT murder is wrong; but disagree WHY murder is wrong - are our views "the same"? To me they are.

This is the sort of discussion that leads back to Kantian noumena. Your mind is a noumenon to me - a thing in itself. I don't care about much about its inner workings if we agree on the conclusions.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.

Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.

How's it going here for you rapidly attaining consensus?
[/quote]
It's doesn't work when only one side knows how to do it. That's why it's called "distributed" consensus.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am I'm not sure a coyote and a squirrel can always agree. Apart from different sensory systems and goals and needs. I think people can via differing experiences and skills/perception be that significantly different.

Sameness and difference is a continuum.

Any two views are the same. Except for their differences.
Any two views are different. Except for their similarities.

Either way they intersect.

If you want to agree - you'll focus on the similarities and iron out the differences.
If you want to disagree - you'll ignore the similarities and blow the differences out proportion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am It's impossible, on some issues, to achieve consensus with a child.

Well if you declare it "impossible" then it must be true.

The child doesn't have to like the consensus, they just have to agree.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am You can assert authority and use power to force participation in what is not a consensus.

Which consensus do you think matters more? The practical or psychological one?

I can agree that murder is wrong and still murder you.

Consensus under protest is still consensus in practice. That's the consensus that matters.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am There are simply some things the child cannot understand (hopefully yet). I think this is true between adults also. We just aren't the same, deep down really. I used to think we were. Not much anymore. Though I try to leave the door open in most situations.

We don't need to be the same "deep down.". But we often want very similar things.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm I think the concern of the moral anti-realist is that if person X thinks morals are objective and demonstrated - which VA does - he cannot view his position as preference and so cannot negotiate.

This is first order thinking. Everything is preference.

Then there is preference about preference (when preferences conflict)
Then there is preference about preference about preference (when second order thinking conflicts).

Being an anti-realist instead of a quasi-realist is preference.
Choosing one philosophy over another is preference.

No preference - no choice.

That's why in scientific research revealed preferences are more effective/trustworthy measure of people's preferences than people's own words about what they prefer.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm I think the concern of the realist is how can I possibily get people to stop doing things I hate.

I think that's the concern of every human who hates being murdered, raped, robbed, beaten, invaded, enslaved or otherwise abused.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm I think there is some truth to both concerns. That there is a tendency for moral realists to want to force others to do what they consider right.

Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying. You haven't pushed them far enough to find their breaking point; or given them enough power to see how they use it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:16 pm That there is a tendency to overaccept toxic behavior by moral anti-realists.

It need not be that way, but I think they are both on to something.

We all choose which hills we are willing to die on.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:34 pm Language is part of the issue. Know-how is another part.

Synchronizing knowledge/information/language is a just a skill. But if you don't apply it it's the same as not having it.

It sounds like you are saying that really, deep down, we have the same beliefs, but we use different words for things and we lack the dialogue/translation skills to figure this out.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:10 pm Because the views are not the same.

"The same" in what respect?

Well, in your formulation...one is 'more wrong'.

Either I am more wrong and you'll sway me to your view; or you are more wrong and I'll sway you to mine.

And again, notice that people are moving from one view to another.
and here...

Or we'll abandon both our views and synthesise a new one we both land at.

If we abandon a view, we did not reconcile views. We reconciled and now have a different view. Or we reconciled not our views, but by leaving our views.

And it seems, perhaps, then that it wasn't just a language difference. We now see things differently.

And yes, I realize that how we use language affects seeing. But it seems like your description includes something more than...we figured out words for our views that now match.

If we agree THAT murder is wrong; but disagree WHY murder is wrong - are our views "the same"? To me they are.

This is the sort of discussion that leads back to Kantian noumena. Your mind is a noumenon to me - a thing in itself. I don't care about much about its inner workings if we agree on the conclusions.

In instances of choosing legislation or police protocols or how causally you reacted to seeing that person get shot, sure. If we see problems to do with the meta-view, then that's a different thing. I think PH can come out and verbalize that his concern is that moral realists, because they view their morals as objective have a harder time negotiating and arriving at consensus. Also they may be more likely to colonize with their ideas. I believe VA thinks that a moral anti-realist must be accepting of behaviors he doesn't like and even they don't like. I think there is some truth to both their concerns.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am Or an unwillingness to waste time (after some period of trying to reconcile) or an unwillingness to waste resources.

Sure. People who don't know how to rapidly attain consensus (e.g change minds - their own; or others) tend to view the process as very painful.

How's it going here for you rapidly attaining consensus?
[/quote]

It's doesn't work when only one side knows how to do it. That's why it's called "distributed" consensus.

So, the world is filled with faulty nodes - if I did my homework correctly.

So, the world is filled with faulty nodes. Now what?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am I'm not sure a coyote and a squirrel can always agree. Apart from different sensory systems and goals and needs. I think people can via differing experiences and skills/perception be that significantly different.

Sameness and difference is a continuum.

Agreed. A coyote and a squirrel have many overlaps. And coyotes and badgers can and do collaborate. But it's the difference end of the spectrum I am focused on since reconciliation is the goal. The similarities are already reconciled.

Any two views are the same. Except for their differences.
Any two views are different. Except for their similarities.

Either way they intersect.

If you want to agree - you'll focus on the similarities and iron out the differences.
If you want to disagree - you'll ignore the similarities and blow the differences out proportion.

Certainly, good heuristics can come out of this. That said. There's a point where the squirrel and the coyote cannot reconcile.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am It's impossible, on some issues, to achieve consensus with a child.

Well if you declare it "impossible" then it must be true.

well, 1) I have declared things and been rapidly or on a much later date experienced things that changed my mind. So my expectations are not that powerful (for good and for ill). 2) two years simply do not understand what I do - about roads for example. If we mean by consensus that the child heeds me, ok. If we mean they give up the more wrong view, I don't think so. Or to put this another way...I think child safety outlet covers are a good thing. But I don't know where to buy child safety street covers.

The child doesn't have to like the consensus, they just have to agree.

The have to agree to the behavior (restriction often) but they don't have to like it, nor do they have to think I am right (in my version of parenting. others want the latter two also)

That's reconciling behavior, not views. Might it make more sense to focus on behavior than views. VA and PH agree on what legislation they would support. (that is a view also, or it has attendant views, but the focus is on behavior).

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:18 am You can assert authority and use power to force participation in what is not a consensus.

Which consensus do you think matters more? The practical or psychological one?

I can agree that murder is wrong and still murder you.

There the practical. In marriage both are very important. Psychology is in the room.

Consensus under protest is still consensus in practice. That's the consensus that matters.

Consensus under protest is generally not stable. There's a reason to get at psychology in many instances. And priors are often psychological. Values, for example. If you are going to reconcile views and you have to get into priors to do it, you are likely going to have to get into values.

We don't need to be the same "deep down.". But we often want very similar things.

I think this is one place where we see things differently. I think there are fundamental differences between people. We are both writing here in broad strokes, so it's hard to know. But I think there are core value differences and fundamental differences in what people want for ecological niches AND fundamental differences in sense of causation. For example, some people believe that what you do over there between consenting adults has causation that other people do not think it has.

But of the two the value difference is the larger one, I think. Hence my example with squirrels and coyotes.