Terrapin Station

One piece of advice often given to authors is "Write so that it would be understandable to a reasonably intelligent 10 year-old." Keeping that in mind...

Re shared meaning, for example, is your view that people are literally given meanings from others, kind of like you might hand a football to them, say...

You've got to be kidding me. "Popular," in context, is about admiration you'd say? The argument ad populum fallacy has something to do with liking or ...

Again, if morality is a judgment or assessment of behavior, how can someone else make a judgment for us? If you're saying that we literally receive a ...

So then how is morality not of individuals? Are you positing some sort of communal mind?

Would you say that morality is something other than judgments/assessments of behavior? Or is it that you think that judgments or assessments can occur...

Not near as irritating as your attitude. Presumably I'm challenging that there is any difference in this context, right? So how about supporting the n...

In general: Try to keep things as simple as you can while still expressing what you need to express. Keep in mind that readers don't necessarily have ...

You can't be non-autonomous when it comes to your ethics, because no one else can make a judgment for you.

The difference between prevalence and popularity is?

The popularity of a view is irrelevant to it being correct. Aside from just what counts as harmonious relations being a matter of individual judgment,...

With repect to "not just an opinion/view," no, because that's what "better" is. It simply amounts to preferring one thing over another, often because ...

Yes--that's exactly right. The thing is that "objectively better" is a category error in the first place. So competing views are not better or worse t...

Two common, relatively clear senses: (1) natural is contrasted with artificial/man-made (2) natural is contrasted with supernatural--ghosts, magic, de...

But then you get folks like me who don't care for any moralizing at all when it comes to speech.:razz:

Depends on the community and who we ask. But sure, it's not unusual that a lot of people are pro-conformist enough that they think that.

Well, but isn't it clear to you that no matter what we do, whatever we believe about meta-ethics, we're left with people with diametrically opposed mo...

Rather than trying to make an argument for that--because it would take a lot of time, take a lot of steps, etc. I'll explain how I'd go about doing it...

Sure, and I'm not saying that it's anything more than a subjective judgment. I just don't get saying that there's no way to compare them. We're compar...

That wasn't intended to reference you. I don't know if you think any of that stuff or not.

It's a subjective judgment comparing two stances. It's not an argument about it in the sense of premises leading to a conclusion. What I explained is ...

Yeah, that could be.

Well, but we can do that. I don't get why someone would think that we can't.

I don't understand what you're thinking here. Say that my view is that it's not okay to rape others. I run into someone who thinks that it's okay to r...

There's not going to be any objective grounds (in my view). The grounds are simply that they contracted the person because they believed them to have ...

Exactly. Which is what I was getting at above re his framework being that we have to defer to what's objectively the case. (And since what's objective...

People who think that "out of step with their community" amounts to "wrong" in any manner are the last people I want to be spending time around.

Yeah, they wouldn't be. And in that situation, there's a chance that the person who did the booking should have their job threatened, because they did...

First, before even reading the article, it's worth noting that among the many ways that I'm a relativist is that I'm a "perspectivalist." I don't actu...

Usually people stressing that (free) speech has "consequences" are folks who support things like violence in response to speech in some instances, tak...

Wow, you guys were busy overnight.

In my view there's not an obligation to provide a platform for just any arbitrary speech. The obligation is to not take a certain class(es) of actions...

The consequences free speech should engender are speech consequences.

Let's look at this part first. So, first off, "I prefer pizza to horseradish" is a value judgment. Comparing and preferring one thing to another is ma...

That's simply contradicting what I wrote. They're not facts of that subject, not insofar as any sort of value judgment or normative is attached to it.

Above, when I wrote " if we're attaching any sort of judgment or normative to different objective states (and those terms typically have those sorts o...

This isn't to suggest agreement or disagreement, but the point according to whom?

Hence why I tried to clarify just what you were claiming. You explicitly said "No, not per any particular individual's judgement"

On that, prima facie, we agree, but in general you sure don't type as if you agree with it.

You can just ignore "if you're attaching any sort of value judgment of normative (in the "should" sense) to emotional AND physical health (as well as ...

Again, if we're attaching any sort of judgment or normative to different objective states (and those terms typically have those sorts of connotations)...

Again, if you're attaching any sort of value judgment of normative (in the "should" sense) to emotional AND physical health, you're engaging in someth...

Yes, it is, if you're saying that something is correct because it's statistically common. That's the whole nut of what the argumentum ad populum falla...

But the explanation had nothing at all to do with whether anything is of equal consequence. That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of the gist of th...

More or less similar to the norm or the statistically common views, sure. You're not suggesting that something being statistically common makes it rig...

If it's so clear, all you need to do is to point out how we'd observe/check/etc. the objective moral stances. The answer, of course, can't be merely w...

There's no "not in any particular individual's judgment 'better'," so that's a problem. There's no "not in any particular individual's judgment" asses...

The best subjective feelings per some individual's subjective judgment? (But likely not others?)

Look at it this way, with something that's less controversially a matter of preferences: Say that Joe prefers the taste of pizza to the taste of horse...

I understand it, but I'm trying to explain the conceptual framework issues that are causing your lack of understanding of the relativist view.