Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:01 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:04 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:09 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:04 am
What you should say instead is, "Nothing is 'good' or 'bad' at all." That's the implication of such a view. As you say...
Based on the differentiation "inherently (by nature)" vs "conventionally" that's not the implication.
Actually, it is.

A "convention" is something that has no moral standing at all, by itself, because nothing has such a standing. So that's the implication.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that morally "good" and morally "bad" are pre-existing givens. You are free to believe anything you like.

Posted: **Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm**

stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:01 pm You seem to be fixated on the idea that morally "good" and morally "bad" are pre-existing givens. You are free to believe anything you like.

Well, at the same time, you are free to believe unicorns have haloes. You are free to believe that the universe is made of marshmallow. So yes, you are "free" to believe anything you like. But you aren't always justified in believing it.

The point is simple: "convention" means, "what A group of people happens to choose to practice for some period of time." Nothing about such a thing is binding or true. If "good" and "bad" are merely conventions, then nothing at all makes it necessary for anybody else to believe in them. In fact, the terms themselves have no content whatsoever.

Those concepts don't even have pragmatic or instrumental significance, because whatever goals they could be "good FOR" or "bad FOR" are not justifed as being worthy of being pursued; they are only "for" matters of complete indifference.

Posted: **Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:38 pm**

Quoting Immanuel Can, Stevie wrote:

You seem to be fixated on the idea that morally "good" and morally "bad" are pre-existing givens.

If that is what IC thinks then I agree with IC.

If good, beauty, and truth are not Platonic Forms then they are nothing but opinions.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:06 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:01 pm You seem to be fixated on the idea that morally "good" and morally "bad" are pre-existing givens. You are free to believe anything you like.
Well, at the same time, you are free to believe unicorns have haloes. You are free to believe that the universe is made of marshmallow. So yes, you are "free" to believe anything you like. But you aren't always justified in believing it.

The point is simple: "convention" means, "what A group of people happens to choose to practice for some period of time." Nothing about such a thing is binding or true. If "good" and "bad" are merely conventions, then nothing at all makes it necessary for anybody else to believe in them. In fact, the terms themselves have no content whatsoever.

Those concepts don't even have pragmatic or instrumental significance, because whatever goals they could be "good FOR" or "bad FOR" are not justifed as being worthy of being pursued; they are only "for" matters of complete indifference.

I take these words of yours to be an elaboration of a part of your "guiding philosophy" I have referred to in my answer to the topic of this thread here.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm**

stevie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:01 pm You seem to be fixated on the idea that morally "good" and morally "bad" are pre-existing givens. You are free to believe anything you like.
Well, at the same time, you are free to believe unicorns have haloes. You are free to believe that the universe is made of marshmallow. So yes, you are "free" to believe anything you like. But you aren't always justified in believing it.

The point is simple: "convention" means, "what A group of people happens to choose to practice for some period of time." Nothing about such a thing is binding or true. If "good" and "bad" are merely conventions, then nothing at all makes it necessary for anybody else to believe in them. In fact, the terms themselves have no content whatsoever.

Those concepts don't even have pragmatic or instrumental significance, because whatever goals they could be "good FOR" or "bad FOR" are not justifed as being worthy of being pursued; they are only "for" matters of complete indifference.
I take these words of yours to be an elaboration of a part of your "guiding philosophy"

They're not, actually. One would not have to believe any part of my philosophy in order to be driven to the same conclusions. They're just the logical conclusions one has to come to, if one says that ethics are only a matter of convention.

Once one does, the rest follows necessarily. "Conventions" are trivial, contingent, temporary and non-binding. The only way to avoid it would be to become irrational, and to say that in spite of being no more than conventional, ethics somehow are still binding, obligatory and universal.

And I have yet to see the argument that shows that to be rational.

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:36 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm
Well, at the same time, you are free to believe unicorns have haloes. You are free to believe that the universe is made of marshmallow. So yes, you are "free" to believe anything you like. But you aren't always justified in believing it.

The point is simple: "convention" means, "what A group of people happens to choose to practice for some period of time." Nothing about such a thing is binding or true. If "good" and "bad" are merely conventions, then nothing at all makes it necessary for anybody else to believe in them. In fact, the terms themselves have no content whatsoever.

Those concepts don't even have pragmatic or instrumental significance, because whatever goals they could be "good FOR" or "bad FOR" are not justifed as being worthy of being pursued; they are only "for" matters of complete indifference.
I take these words of yours to be an elaboration of a part of your "guiding philosophy"
They're not, actually. ...

So you 're claiming your guiding philosophy to not be a guiding philosophy ... well

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm One would not have to believe any part of my philosophy in order to be driven to the same conclusions. ...

Since I don't believe anything of your philosophy I am not driven to your conclusion. Even if not having read your words I would not have been driven to your conclusions because your philosophy isn't mine from the outset. So?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm "Conventions" are trivial, contingent, temporary and non-binding.

Judgements like "good" and "bad" are conventions, contingent, temporary and non-binding. That doesn't deter people to commit themselves to such judgements and to follow guidelines that are conventionally judged as "good". So?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm ... The only way to avoid it would be to become irrational, and to say that in spite of being no more than conventional, ethics somehow are still binding, obligatory and universal.

And I have yet to see the argument that shows that to be rational.

Rationality is relative because it aims at relative goals. Therefore people might follow conventions because they pursue particular (psychological and/or social) goals which is a quite rational behaviour. So?

Posted: **Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:28 pm**

stevie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:06 am

I take these words of yours to be an elaboration of a part of your "guiding philosophy"
They're not, actually. ...
So you 're claiming your guiding philosophy to not be a guiding philosophy ... well

Not at all.

I'm claiming only that no particular philosophy is necessary in order to see the simple logic of the "conventional" assumption. It stands or falls not on what my philosophy is, but on the logical consequences that it, itself, entails.

And anybody can see those. All you have to do is understand the premise.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm One would not have to believe any part of my philosophy in order to be driven to the same conclusions. ...
Since I don't believe anything of your philosophy I am not driven to your conclusion.

But it's not MY philosophy at all.

I don't believe in "conventionalism" about ethics. But "conventionalism" itself determines what follows logically from it. If you say, "Good and evil are conventional," then what that entails flows from that statement...nothing else.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm "Conventions" are trivial, contingent, temporary and non-binding.
Judgements like "good" and "bad" are conventions, contingent, temporary and non-binding.

Actually, I would argue they're not. But I agree that conventionalism has to assume that's true, so we may continue. Let's go with your supposition, not mine.

That doesn't deter people to commit themselves to such judgements and to follow guidelines that are conventionally judged as "good".

They can indeed "commit" themselves to particular judgments or guidelines. But since they think that "good" only means "conventional," then what they are really saying, logically, is "The judgment I've chosen to commit to is the same as is conventional among those people I like."

What they can't say at all is, "My judgment on X is actually good." "Good" has no particular meaning in that sentence, for them. It's just another way of saying "conventional."

Rationality is relative

"Rationalizing" may be relative. But rationality itself is not. And logic is not.

In technical language, philosophers say that logic is formal -- meaning it doesn't require you to believe in a particular worldview in order to use it. Anything can be plugged into logic, just as any numbers can be plugged into mathematics, and logic will issue the logical results.

Logic shows that for a conventionalist, "good" cannot have any meaning. Nor can "bad." That's because all goals, goods and bads are all presumed to be merely "conventional," by definition of the position. If one doesn't believe that, one is no longer a conventionalist.

And it's logic, once the supposition of conventionalism itself is plugged into it, that demonstrates that.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:16 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:28 pm In technical language, philosophers say that logic is formal -- meaning it doesn't require you to believe in a particular worldview in order to use it. Anything can be plugged into logic, just as any numbers can be plugged into mathematics, and logic will issue the logical results.

Logic shows that for a conventionalist, "good" cannot have any meaning. Nor can "bad." That's because all goals, goods and bads are all presumed to be merely "conventional," by definition of the position. If one doesn't believe that, one is no longer a conventionalist.

Technical language is a matter of convention so you don't believe that logic is formal, or it doesn't mean anything for you to say that it is.
Manners are a matter of convention, so obviously it follows that you fart loudly at the dinner table and swear equally loudly when you are in church.
Which side of the road to drive on is also a matter of convention, so you have died in a car crash.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:39 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:16 am ...you don't believe that logic is formal...

Yeah, I do. It is formal. Mathematics is also formal. "Formal" means that the form of the thing is unaffected by particular content. So, for example, 2+2 =4, whether the "substance" in question is a goat or an armchair. Have you never heard of this distinction in philosophy?

Views and opinions are the opposite, which is called "substantive," which is the word used to designate something that is content-dependent.

Logic is applicable to all matters of deduction, regardless of whether the content in view is one opinion or another. My point to stevie was simply that the content (substantive) comes from his worldview, not mine, and the procedure of deducing the logic of it (formal) does not depend on any particular worldview at all.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:39 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:39 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:16 am ...you don't believe that logic is formal...
Yeah, I do. It is formal.

Such is the convention.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:56 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:39 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:39 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:16 am ...you don't believe that logic is formal...
Yeah, I do. It is formal.
Such is the convention.

I guess you think maths is a "convention," then, too.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:34 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:28 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm
They're not, actually. ...
So you 're claiming your guiding philosophy to not be a guiding philosophy ... well
Not at all.

I'm claiming only that no particular philosophy is necessary in order to see the simple logic of the "conventional" assumption. It stands or falls not on what my philosophy is, but on the logical consequences that it, itself, entails.

And anybody can see those. All you have to do is understand the premise.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm One would not have to believe any part of my philosophy in order to be driven to the same conclusions. ...
Since I don't believe anything of your philosophy I am not driven to your conclusion.
But it's not MY philosophy at all.

I don't believe in "conventionalism" about ethics. But "conventionalism" itself determines what follows logically from it. If you say, "Good and evil are conventional," then what that entails flows from that statement...nothing else.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:22 pm "Conventions" are trivial, contingent, temporary and non-binding.
Judgements like "good" and "bad" are conventions, contingent, temporary and non-binding.
Actually, I would argue they're not. But I agree that conventionalism has to assume that's true, so we may continue. Let's go with your supposition, not mine.

That doesn't deter people to commit themselves to such judgements and to follow guidelines that are conventionally judged as "good".
They can indeed "commit" themselves to particular judgments or guidelines. But since they think that "good" only means "conventional," then what they are really saying, logically, is "The judgment I've chosen to commit to is the same as is conventional among those people I like."

What they can't say at all is, "My judgment on X is actually good." "Good" has no particular meaning in that sentence, for them. It's just another way of saying "conventional."

Rationality is relative
"Rationalizing" may be relative. But rationality itself is not. And logic is not.

In technical language, philosophers say that logic is formal -- meaning it doesn't require you to believe in a particular worldview in order to use it. Anything can be plugged into logic, just as any numbers can be plugged into mathematics, and logic will issue the logical results.

Logic shows that for a conventionalist, "good" cannot have any meaning. Nor can "bad." That's because all goals, goods and bads are all presumed to be merely "conventional," by definition of the position. If one doesn't believe that, one is no longer a conventionalist.

And it's logic, once the supposition of conventionalism itself is plugged into it, that demonstrates that.

I think we have exhaustively exchanged our incompatible perspectives. You are denying that what you are saying is guided by your philosophical outlook because you believe to speak from a perspective of a kind of "absolute truth" which you feel to be beyond any philosophical thinking. I recognize this attitude of yours as being similar or even identical with the attitude taken by fundamentalist religious persons. I don't mind you having this attitude because psychologically such an attitude can be explained.
At this point of our conversation to keep on repeating our incompatible perspectives again and again wouldn't make sense to me. I accept that there is a multitude of beliefs among humans which from my perspective are the result of (cultural) conventions and corresponding educations and individual psychological factors.

An important aspect we have not covered so far is what people think about ethics and how people act. E.g. someone might share your guiding philosophy and believe "killing is bad (by nature)" but kill nevertheless under certain circumstances while another might share my guiding philosophy "killing is bad (by convention)" but never ever kill under any circumstance. So what one believes about ethics and how one acts in real life isn't necessarily directly mutually dependent in all situations and for practical real life the philosophies people follow might be quite irrelevant.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:45 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:56 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:39 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:39 am
Yeah, I do. It is formal.
Such is the convention.
I guess you think maths is a "convention," then, too.

The set of persons who care about such questions as whether numbers are discovered or manufactured does not include FDP. You can ask Skepdick though, and I am sure he will take you on an adventure of unconventional maths.

I was just poking fun at your stupid argument that conventional translates to meaningless.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:16 pm**

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:34 am You are denying that what you are saying is guided by your philosophical outlook...

It isn't. It's guided by two things: "conventionalism," as a starting point, and logic as a mechanism. That's it.

You could discover the same thing from any worldview position at all, so long as you start with conventionalism and move by logic.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:17 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:45 pm The set of persons who care about such questions as whether numbers are discovered or manufactured does not include FDP.

Not interested in logic, then?

Philosophy Now Forum

What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?

Re: What is the Point of Ethics?