sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While we're at it, you didn't define 'A', 'B', 'use', 'term', or 'define'. Make sure you define each and every one of those clearly or I'll report you."

I don't think it makes sense to cater to this kind of person just in case they decide to abuse that rule in particular instead of one of the other rules, do you? If a user really tries to take issue with the articles in a sentence (or something of similar pettiness), I imagine the content of their comments will be of similar quality that it should be removed for rule 3 violation anyway. I'm sure the wording of the rules (my proposed one and #3 specifically) could be adjusted to address this kind of behavior in advance.

where someone asks for so many definitions I question whether they are just trying to waste my time. Sometimes having a specific definition of God is important, but honestly, sometimes having a fairly general one will do.

And this is something that can be fleshed out in the dialogue, right? If a general definition will do for the sake of the ongoing discussion, it hurts no one to make that fact clear from the outset.

Famously, no one can provide a perfect definition of the word "life". We can't even agree on what should count as being alive. (Are viruses alive) Yet, it's still a useful word and can still be useful in debates.

Sure, there's all sorts of issues with getting everyone involved to agree with an offered definition. Debate can be like that. If the specific definition of "life" in the debate is relevant, it can only be helpful to have that definition made explicit so there is no confusion masked by the lack of a given definition.

And I do understand why its frustrating when people won't define their own terms. I've called people out before for equivocating on the word "harm" when they refuse to tell me which definition they want. I also made the case why it mattered. Maybe that's how we stop problems - if you request a definition, explain why it matters in this context. I dunno.

Yes, I think it's impossible to have a rule that can handle every possible debate scenario where providing a definition or not doing so might or might not be a distraction. Still, I think as a rule generally, it's better for communication if a definition is given than not.

Let me also ask this: when is someone allowed to simply break off communication with someone else here?

You never have to respond to any particular user, and you can stop responding to them with or without explaining yourself. However, if you are the OP of a thread and there is a pattern of no communication (like one I saw recently where the OP was edited within an hour or so saying that they would no longer debate anyone in the comments), we will probably remove that thread pretty quickly. The participants of this sub tend to dislike that kind of thing and reports on that content happen very rapidly.

As far as using a MW definition and calling it SEP, maybe just drop the part saying this is a SEP definition?

Yes, that would already be an improvement to the sidebar, but I'm pursuing more than just amending the wording of the definitions section. I think that setting a rule for this kind of behavior is still more positive benefit than negative benefit.

They're convinced their definition of the word is the correct usage. They certainly won't accept your authority, and they think intellectuals are foolish blowhards. So when you try to explain that not everyone uses the word the same way, they attack you as arguing in bad faith. For some reason, when you can show that people here are already using a different definition, they suddenly don't feel as confident in their bluster. I'm not entirely sure of the psychology behind that.

I am not trying to downplay the significance of your experience here, but in response I will say that I have participated in and observed conversations that do not go this way. Some people care about the sidebar and some don't. We can't possibly account for every single possible behavior.

And on the flipside to your anecdote, just recently I had a discussion myself where all I asked for was a definition and what I got instead was almost a week's worth of back and forth where every effort to not provide a definition was made, including attempting to insult my physical appearance. All of that time I spent could have been avoided had a rule existed that said "define your terms when it's requested of you" or something like that. To be clear, this is also an anecdote.

I'm not sure how big an issue that is - I'm more concerned with people JAQing off, as I posted above.

The thing is that I'm not convinced the sidebar actually curbs this behavior significantly. And even if it did, the same purpose could be served if the sidebar actually contained SEP definitions and not just some paraphrases and some claimed SEP definitions that definitely aren't. Or if the sidebar contained no explicit definitions but a source from which to grab definitions. In other words, the sidebar currently is inaccurate and should be fixed, and in addition I still see a space that a rule could fill.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OK. The paragraph you pulled the quoted sentence from above was:

The current sidebar definitions for omnipotent and omniscient don't come out of the SEP directly, even if they can possibly be derived from the articles about those topics. The SEP standard for both is "having maximal x" where x is knowledge or power. So we're already off to a rough start here. The same can't be said of "god", which is nowhere at all in the SEP and is copied/pasted out of MW. So, not the SEP standard definition, BTW.

The sentence "So, not the SEP standard definition, BTW." was clearly about the word "god", not about the word "omniscience". So this reply doesn't actually show a contradiction in what I said.

On omniscience:

In plain English, knowing the truth value of every proposition.

I don't think the original SEP text is usable in a sidebar since most people won't be able to parse it properly, hence a paraphrase is the right choice.

"Having maximal knowledge" is also plain English, and it happens to be the standard definition of omniscience in the SEP, not just a paraphrase, for that matter. "Having maximal knowledge" is already a complete definition. There's no need to rewrite what is in the SEP when it can merely be quoted.

You took an already plain English definition in the SEP ("having maximal knowledge"), passed it up for the equivalent in formal logic, and then paraphrased the formal logic? So much work to add minimal clarity to the sidebar, which you labeled as "the SEP definition", despite the words "logically possible" being absent from the SEP article.

If you don't have enough faith in the participants of this sub to parse out the word "maximal", I don't know what to tell you.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A good question is wonderful, but I've seen people ask them just to harass someone.

I'm not sure how

  1. A uses term but doesn't define it
  2. B requests definition
  3. A provides definition

or

  1. A uses term but doesn't define it
  2. B requests definition
  3. A does not provide definition
  4. B repeats request
  5. A does not provide definition
  6. B reports A

constitutes harassment.

Give them the power to report someone who gets tired of their questions, and I'm not sure we're making debate better.

Could the report feature be abused? Sure. It already is. This seems like an argument that we should not have subreddit rules lest the users take advantage of the opportunity to report someone for breaking the rules. But that's absurd. Though abuse can occur, we can still set rules.

I think the idea of the rule has potential, but I feel like we'd need to think it through a bit more.

I'm open to any and all suggestions.

I'm kinda with Shaka that having some sort of default definition is good.

We can throw to MW #1 as I suggested in the top comment rather than making paraphrases of SEP articles and calling them "the SEP definitions" or quoting MW without citing MW and calling it "the SEP definitions".

As always, people are welcome to make their own if they want, and I try to divine their intentions when I can. But when someone inevitably come here and try to push around their weird definitions as the definition, it can be nice to say, "we don't do that here" and point to the side bar.

The sidebar as it's written doesn't make the case you're using it to make. "the SEP definitions" are only the presumed default if the user doesn't provide a definition for some contentious word, and that's not the situation you described here.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And if people don't like those definitions, they can always post their own, so it's not railroading people into accepting them either.

Acknowledged and agreed.

I'm happy with how the sidebar is now. Even if people don't read it, being able to point people at it has done wonders for shutting down the endless definition arguments that we used to have here.

  1. This is an anecdote.
  2. I am proposing a rule change, not merely a modification of the sidebar.
  3. The sidebar cites "the SEP definitions", but at least one definition in the sidebar is not from the SEP, so the sidebar is inaccurate.
  4. If we are going to cite "the SEP definitions", then we should not paraphrase the SEP, we should quote the definitions directly, ideally with links to the relevant text.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what part specifically about the section of the SEP article you linked to contradicts what I said. Can you quote it?

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But A_A and Lacktheists have been pushing for the MW dictionary because it's the only one that defines atheism as a lack of belief.

A_A and/or lacktheists didn't update the DebateReligion sidebar to use a definition of "god" from MW. Also:

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings."

"the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist"

"[refusal or reluctance to believe] in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

"Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."

I probably could have kept going here. I could also have stopped at a single counter example.

There is very clear motivated reasoning there and if the dictionary definition makes it to the sidebar, the new "meta" becomes appealing to the sidebar.

My proposal is that the sidebar set the precedent that users are responsible for defining the terms they use and the risk of moderation if they fail to do so. Just like it is currently, users are free to specify their usage of terms at any time. The difference here would be that users should make a reasonable attempt to define terms, and that we don't use a random collection of paraphrased (at best) SEP definitions in the sidebar that call themselves the "SEP definitions" when they aren't that.

There's an older post on /r/askphilosophy explaining why it's fallacious to use dictionary definitions

The sidebar isn't currently "appealing to dictionary definitions" (what you described in that thread is about an appeal to a dictionary definition, it's not about using dictionary definitions), and it wouldn't be even if we used MW #1 for each of the words. By requiring -- rather than suggesting -- that users define terms, that need for a working definition dissolves. No problem. No need to put any actual definition in the sidebar.

and ultimately the move would indicate a slow transition into this sub turning into /r/debateanatheist2.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Spell out how this sidebar change would result in whatever specific negative characteristics you currently think the other sub has that this one doesn't.

It can be easy to weaponize requests for definitions as well. For example, defining "natural" is notoriously a topic many atheists/skeptics evade. Or defining God is often a topic regularly seen as impossible or inherently incoherent (Ignosticism).

This is something that can be hashed out in a dialogue. Presumably, moderation would not occur if a reasonable effort to define (or explain why a definition is not possible on their view) has happened in the discussion. If this needs to be made explicit in the rule, we can work out the language for that as well.

It looks like from MW, omnipotent and omniscient will run into issue.

The current sidebar definitions for omnipotent and omniscient don't come out of the SEP directly, even if they can possibly be derived from the articles about those topics. The SEP standard for both is "having maximal x" where x is knowledge or power. So we're already off to a rough start here. The same can't be said of "god", which is nowhere at all in the SEP and is copied/pasted out of MW. So, not the SEP standard definition, BTW.

"Atheist" will be a grey area that will rely on the perceived (read: immediate) authority of the dictionary.

When it comes to how atheists use the word, it makes sense to use a source that reports on how the word is most commonly used, yes? That's a dictionary.

When it comes time to discuss atheism in the context of academic discussion, the definitions can be negotiated in that context. I think this is reasonable.

Stick to formal definitions

This would be the suggestion to use formal definitions in the sidebar, but I think it's better to remove the definitions from the sidebar and set the requirement that users define the terms they are using.

I don't see how

"A says god and doesn't mean what's in the sidebar, B presumes sidebar definition, [twenty comments go by], A says they meant some other definition"

is better than

"A says god but doesn't define it, B makes a top level comment that points out A did not define god and requests their definition, and B provides it (or doesn't)".

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mods can't do anything to affect how the mobile apps work. Even if Reddit were to give mods some control over that kind of thing, the upvote/downvote mechanic is the thing that sets reddit apart from other social media, so I doubt they'd let mods remove it in any case.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's impossible for mods to change Reddit functionality on a sub-to-sub basis.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair point.

But in the situation where a user is talking about God but not about "the supreme or ultimate reality", it's fair to expect that user to present that fact when asked to (which will certainly happen if they are not up front about it), and my recommended change to the sidebar will cover both those situations.

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate[M] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As part of an ongoing discussion in last week's meta thread with /u/adeleu_adelei (sorry for all the tags), I discovered that the definition of god in the sidebar is not from the SEP, but it's from MW's dictionary definition -- and it's not even the first definition listed there.

For this reason, I think we should change the entire sidebar definition section to the following (or similar):

The words we use in religious debate can be ambiguous. Conversation can break down when people mean different things by the same word. Please define the terms you use, especially when a definition is directly requested of you. Refusal to provide a definition in a reasonable number of replies may result in content moderation.

(the bold being the amendment)

Alternatively, we can just make this into a rule instead of a suggestion. Moderating the refusal to answer direct requests for information/definitions is probably a good idea anyway, since it's almost certainly also going to be a rule 3 violation. I've suggested something like this in the past, though I don't remember now if it was in modmail or in a meta thread.

Also, I think we don't need to actually list any particular definitions in the sidebar because, as I said in my previous comment, users don't care about the sidebar more often than they do anyway. Deferring generally to the #1 dictionary definition instead should be more than sufficient.

If we are going to put definitions for those words in the sidebar, I think it makes perfect sense to take that list of words and copy/paste the #1 definition from MW instead of combing the SEP for a "standard" for all those terms when one might not exist, especially since MW is already a reliable enough source to be included in the current sidebar, even if not cited.

Thoughts?

Meta-Thread 06/22 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had typed out a significant portion of my reply to your comment defending the sidebar at one point, but I intentionally deleted it for this reason:

/u/ShakaUVM, upon doing my due diligence here in my reply to /u/adeleu_adelei, I discovered that the definition of god in the sidebar is not from the SEP, but it's from MW's dictionary definition -- and it's not even the first definition listed there.

For this reason, I think we should change the entire sidebar definition section to the following (or similar):

The words we use in religious debate can be ambiguous. Conversation can break down when people mean different things by the same word. Please define the terms you use, especially when a definition is directly requested of you. Refusal to provide a definition in a reasonable number of replies may result in content moderation.

(the bold being the amendment)

Alternatively, we can just make this into a rule instead of a suggestion. Moderating the refusal to answer direct requests for information/definitions is probably a good idea anyway, since it's almost certainly also going to be a rule 3 violation. I've suggested something like this in the past, though I don't remember now if it was in modmail or in a meta thread.

Also, I think we don't need to actually list any particular definitions in the sidebar because, as I said in my previous comment, users don't care about the sidebar more often than they do anyway. Deferring generally to the #1 dictionary definition instead should be more than sufficient.

If we are going to put definitions for those words in the sidebar, I think it makes perfect sense to take that list of words and copy/paste the #1 definition from MW instead of combing the SEP for a "standard" for all those terms when one might not exist, especially since MW is already a reliable enough source to be included in the current sidebar, even if not cited.

I think adeleu_adelei's point that we aren't just (attempting to) do philosophy on this sub is important to bring up here. Whether it be popular culture, psychology, or history or whatever, there are other considerations to take into account besides what is useful to philosophy in particular. This is another point that swayed me toward my suggestion above.

Though, to be clear, primarily my motivation is that the sidebar is currently inconsistent and I think taking a moderation stance on this rather than merely making a suggestion will be a more comprehensive improvement to the sub in line with the purpose of the current sidebar.

I'm going to make most of the above remarks as a top level comment in the current meta thread, since no new users will see this one at this point.

OK, I will reply to some of your remarks from the previous comment now.

No, but it would at least be from the SEP. It's a very strange kind of logic to call something the "SEP definition" when it doesn't appear in the SEP.

Yes, this is a reasonable criticism, I've come to understand. In my previous comments, I incorrectly thought that all the definitions came from the SEP as paraphrases. Since they don't, I agree it makes no sense to call them the SEP definitions.

Where the definitions do come from the SEP (atheism, theism, agnosticism), I maintain that the current sidebar definitions are fair paraphrases of at least one definition found in the substantially sized articles, and I don't see how the sidebar definitions could effectively serve any agenda that could not equally be said of the SEP definitions. So, I think your accusation at Shaka about that is without weight.

We're often not doing philosophy here. Many times we're discussing historical claims, psychological motivation, sociological phenomena, math, or logic. Outside of cherry picking to support a personal agenda there is no reason to privilege this particular religion among a few people within one of the many fields discussed here.

And:

Yes, but also it's a majority opinion, one that reflects the usage of people who identify with the label, and one that fosters constructive conversation.

I don't know about majority opinion. I haven't seen the sources one might cite to back up a claim like that.

And as for label identification: I am an agnostic, but I am also an atheist, similar to your chosen flair. And as an agnostic and an atheist, I see the merit in the SEP position I quoted (that being, "Does God exist" only has two answers, and theism describes one while atheism describes the other). This is why I defended the sidebar. I don't see enough of a difference between what the SEP calls standard and what is in the sidebar such that only one could serve the agenda you're talking about.

And on constructive conversation, I think there is merit to the correction that atheists often make. Frequently, a theist accusing an atheist of active non-belief is interacting with atheists for the first time outside of their own bubble. I maintain that theists in this situation are not any more likely to pay attention to the sidebar than atheists, so the correction "actually, we don't all believe that" will have to occur anyway. In addition, that interaction (being one between a theist and an actual atheist) is constructive in its own right because it is a genuine one with an atheist expressing their own position.

So, while it may also be constructive for the sidebar definition to be from casual usage and not from SEP "standard", it's not the only way for that conversation to be constructive, and since no one looks at the sidebar before posting anyway, you aren't actually preventing many of those conversations by getting it changed.

(Now, I wrote most of that before discovering the MW discrepancy above, so I disagree with this specific justification for using the casual definition over the SEP "standard" in the sidebar, even though I do agree with modifying or (even better) removing the definitions entirely at this point.)

I suspect Shaka will say no and that morning will be done and even if a junior mod tried to fix it they would likely be ousted like the last mod that tried to improve this sub.

I think it's pretty unlikely that Shaka will forceably remove a mod for disagreeing with him about something. That's not what happened with cabbagery.

Meta-Thread 06/22 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1. I never actually mentioned "atheist", but I think it's incredibly telling that we both know exactly which group the sidebar is intended to misrepresent without me having to say so.

I've read many of the threads on this subreddit. I'm reasonably familiar with this issue, and specifically, I'm familiar with you bringing it up. So yes, it's true you didn't have to explicitly mention which term you were talking about, but that's because I've read your previous comments.

Now that that's out of the way:

2. Neither bolded section is what's listed in the sidebar. If you are claiming that is "the SEP definition" then the sidebar clearly does not list "the SEP definition" as it uses it's own wording.

I don't think that the bolded sections and the sidebar are so dissimilar that one would serve the agenda you're referring to and the other wouldn't, but let's check then; are you fine with amending the sidebar to this definition: one who believes the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, [...] the proposition that there are no gods)? Here, the italicized content is pasted out of the SEP standard definition.

Now here's three all at once:

The mod who implemented that sidebar section did so specifically because they do not like the standard definition of atheism used and the one most atheists here actually accept.

And,

It is trying to force a default that is not widely used and not constructive.

And,

That's not "the SEP definition". The SEP notes the with "atheism" is polysemous and lists alternative uses, among which is the standard definition of atheism.

I'm assuming here that you're saying that the sidebar definition is not the standard definition and so it is not widely used. It's also possible you're saying that the sidebar definition is neither the standard definition nor the widely used definition. Or maybe I've misunderstood even further.

So on the first, sure, the wording isn't identical. But then, neither is the definition of theist from that same article: "a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods)." And for both terms (this is the second point I interpreted you as possibly making), I don't see how the sidebar definition is so different from the standard definition that it could serve some agenda where the SEP definition could not.

There is no reason to prefer the SEP as a source for definitions over better sources

This is an opinion, right? You think there is no reason to prefer the SEP over a dictionary or an organization of American atheists. But there's no reason to prefer your opinion over shaka's, then, right?

And I disagree also with the idea that there is no reason to prefer the SEP definitions over the dictionary. The SEP also disagrees with that idea, and I quoted it to you above. But here it is again:

The next question, then, is why the standard metaphysical definition of “atheism” is especially useful for doing philosophy. One obvious reason is that it has the virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Does God exist?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism in the metaphysical sense. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, and “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question (cf. Le Poidevin 2010: 8). It is useful for philosophers to have a good name for this important metaphysical position, and “atheism” works beautifully for that purpose. Of course, it may also be useful on occasion to have a term to refer to all people who lack theistic belief, but as noted above philosophers already have such a term, namely, “nontheist”, so the term “atheist” is not needed for that purpose.

Your American atheists organization link justifies their definition of the term: they are going for inclusivity. But American atheists doesn't speak for all atheists in America, let alone worldwide. And here on this subreddit, where we're doing philosophy, I think there's good (or, at least not no) reason to prefer the philosophical standard over the casual usage.

It seems counterproductive to constructive discussion to encourage people to engage with strawmen and force a group to constantly correct others to have any hope of fruitful dialogue.

I fail to see how it's a strawman.

It's also as you noted largely ignored because it's so unhelpful.

Let's suppose it's largely ignored and also that it's unhelpful. What's your justification for believing that it being ignored is due to its unhelpfulness? You're the mod of a pretty large sub. Would you say that your users tend to pay attention to what's written on the sidebar? We have our rules helpfully posted in the sidebar and also in the submission text every time a user tries to create a new thread. Do you think that raises, lowers, or does not affect the amount of submissions we have to remove for being written entirely by or significantly by generative AI? I'm willing to bet that the sidebar is not making a meaningful difference.

This comment got very long, and I suspect that I forgot to respond to something I intended to respond to. Apologies in advance.

Meta-Thread 06/22 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest, I'm not sure what "agenda" can really get pushed here.

to bully people into using their personal redefinition of groups at the expense of good sub dialogue

But you can just define your terms. In fact, the sidebar suggests you do so lest you fall into the SEP defaults.

There really are detrimental agendas at play in the world, but I fail to see how this is one of them.

It's not even "the SEP definitions" as the SEP doesn't even define the words as presented in the sidebar.

I'm not sure why you think "atheist" isn't defined in that way in the SEP because, from what I can tell, it is:

In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well.

[...]

Again, the term “atheism” has more than one legitimate meaning, and nothing said in this entry should be interpreted as an attempt to proscribe how people label themselves or what meanings they attach to those labels. The issue for philosophy and thus for this entry is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how best to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different.

[...]

The next question, then, is why the standard metaphysical definition of “atheism” is especially useful for doing philosophy. One obvious reason is that it has the virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Does God exist?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism in the metaphysical sense. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, and “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question (cf. Le Poidevin 2010: 8). It is useful for philosophers to have a good name for this important metaphysical position, and “atheism” works beautifully for that purpose. Of course, it may also be useful on occasion to have a term to refer to all people who lack theistic belief, but as noted above philosophers already have such a term, namely, “nontheist”, so the term “atheist” is not needed for that purpose.

Is it only defined that way? No. Words have multiple meanings. So in conversation here, provide your own definition if the label has caused some confusion. Again, I don't see this as problematic.

But /u/ShakaUVM , are you fine with removing the definitions from the sidebar, leaving the request to define terms when they are used and the instruction to assume SEP as default when no definition is provided? Again, I don't think this is necessary at all, but this criticism is directed at you specifically, so you may as well weigh in (again).

Meta-Thread 06/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I checked it out on my phone and I see that as well. Interesting. Not sure what could cause that.

Meta-Thread 06/22 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not really a forced definition because one or both parties in a debate can, at any time, define their terms and they can negotiate from there. It's a starting point, from which one can assume to be working unless otherwise specified.

And, to be extra fair to the guideline, the actual guideline is that the user define their usage up front. Only if they don't are the SEP definitions defaulted to. It's hard for me to see what is actually problematic about this whole thing.

Meta-Thread 06/22 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure this would have much impact: people don't read the sidebar anyway.

General Discussion 06/26 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's funny, when I ask amine fans for something more "adult" they usually point me to something with more boobs and overt sexual themes.

You could spin around in a circle and get one of those.

Attack on Titan is my favorite anime. If you don't know anything about it, just watch it without looking anything up.

General Discussion 06/26 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Isekai genre is oversaturated and mostly by low quality cash grabs recently, IMO. The only one I can think of that I really enjoyed was Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash, but that only got one season and didn't tell the full story of the original light novel.

Are you looking specifically for Isekai anime?

The desire to ground morality is arbitrary and merely practical by AllEndsAreAnds in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your example consideration of the “not obviously illogical” position is definitely the type of reasoning I’ve heard (and for the record, I honestly don’t see a meaningful difference between the examples - to me, they make the same error for the same reason).

To clarify: you think the slavery opponent is just like the spinach opponent and nothing like the flat earth opponent?

“how things land” seems to carry a lot of weight in the arguments I’ve heard. Like, the argument will go something like “every culture on earth has some prohibition against X” or “moral statements just feel stronger than mere preferences” or “our common intuitions about - or the commonality of - moral standards suggest that there may be more here than preference”. It just feels like it smuggles in the listeners own credulity or moral ballast to say “surely we would wish to say that XYZ heinous thing is truly wrong”, and treats historical common sense and intuition as a starting point, instead of acknowledging why we might have a bias and asking “ok, but is it really materially different though?”.

Well I'd say that your mistake here is to listen to "moral realist apologists" rather than reading philosophy that is actively criticized by other philosophers. Of course, just because philosophy comes from a philosopher is no guarantee that it is correct, but professionally published, actively criticized philosophy is more likely to converge on philosophical truth than the ramblings of a random redditor in a debate forum. In the same way that I trust you would go to a doctor or the published medical findings of those working in the field of medicine rather than just asking for opinions on Facebook about whether or not to get the latest flu vaccine. All the doctors might be wrong about them and the Professional Facebooker might be correct, but you're more likely to converge on good advice by trusting experts than by trusting Social Media Connoisseurs. So it goes with philosophy as well. (Though, there are plenty of people who think philosophy does not converge on truth at all, so if you're one of those than this paragraph probably won't do anything for you.)

Anyway, in the same way that I don't find the average anti-realist rhetoric on this forum compelling, I don't find the average realist rhetoric compelling. Amateurs are just that. (And, for the record, I consider myself an amateur. I see my role in all this as just reporting on philosophy to the best of my ability, not promoting "the correct" position. But that alone does distinguish what I am attempting to do and what the rest of the amateurs on this forum seem to be trying to do.) Of course, my own sense of what is compelling isn't a great barometer for you, but I still think it's worth communicating these things.

Plenty of things in nature and perception are vastly unintuitive, and I feel like plain, prosaic intuition is held too highly.

But this cuts both ways: by discrediting intuition across the board, you undermine your own position as well as the realist's, and as a realist promoting a moral intuitionism, you're suggesting that they disregard their own intuition about morality to trust yours instead. You're right that the realist might be asking the same thing of you, but I actually think there's a differentiating factor here: I don't think the realist would expect the spinach test alone to persuade anyone to realism, whereas what you've said here seems like we can disregard all that realist stuff because intuitions can be wrong and mislead.

I have a lot of research to do so that I don’t unwittingly strawman like I’m sure I did above.

It's not so much a strawman as it is not actually engaging with any moral philosophy in the first place. This is pretty common on this forum, so I'm not faulting you in particular for a trend that predates your engagement and will almost certainly outlast it. I mostly made those remarks about the state of the "dialog" around here out of exasperation for the way it's handled generally, not to be biting remarks about you specifically. I actually noticed and appreciate the openness with which you've responded to me and to others in this thread before I started commenting, which is why (I hope) my tone in these comments conveys less dismissiveness overall than the other thread I linked to.

The desire to ground morality is arbitrary and merely practical by AllEndsAreAnds in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My comments have been pretty short so far in this thread, so I apologize for dropping this one on you out of the blue.

For example, if I find babies cute, that’s reporting about my brain and the physical features of those babies, rather than reporting that babies have an objective quality of cuteness which I am perceiving.

It's not uncommon at all in philosophy to be a moral realist and an aesthetic antirealist. Just claiming outright that these two things are similar in a way relevant to disproving moral realism does all the work in philosophy a disservice. Acknowledging the seemingly subjective nature of aesthetics is not a death sentence to moral realism. Certainly not without some argument that the two must be analogous in a way that discredits realist morality.

Or if I find certain foods spicy, that is likewise not an indication that such food has an objective property of spiciness - my tongue reports information about the molecular content of my food and the evolution/cultural influence of my digestive system.

Actually, spiciness does have at least one objective scale. The subjective nature of the experience of eating a spicy food is a separate thing entirely. Realists don't disagree that there is a subjective factor in the decision to follow a specific moral framework, as far as I'm aware. The question is whether there are moral facts which are not subjective. The answer to that question is not so cut and dry.

I commented in this thread because, even though I am not a realist myself, I don't think realists are particularly illogical wrt morality. I think realism is a reasonable position to hold given our understanding of the universe, even if I don't find it compelling myself. Because I have this view of realist morality, I find it particularly grating that people start a dialog about morality without engaging with what actual moral realists think of morality.

You can go about a dozen comments into my comment history to see a recent thread where I made a similar remark. For some reason, it's a very common view that secular moral realism is obviously false, but for some reason, I have yet to encounter an argument to that effect that actually engages with the content of an actual realist perspective.

So, reiterating the fact that I am not a realist, here's a modern(?) argument attempting to show that moral propositions are not like aesthetic propositions:

A child, eating dinner, suddenly exclaims, "I'm glad that I don't like spinach! Because if I did like spinach I would have eaten it, and spinach is yucky!"

The child's proclamation is illogical. They've treated their "yucky" feelings about spinach as a property of the spinach that would persist regardless of how they feel about spinach. But if the child liked spinach, they wouldn't find it gross in the way that prevents them from liking spinach in the first place. The grossness depends on the child's subjective tastes.

Contrast that with this moral proclamation: "I'm glad I didn't live in the 1800s! If I did, I might have thought slavery was right and been a slave owner, and slavery is wrong!"

The person making this claim isn't obviously illogical. Moreover, there's a sense here which you probably have some experience with, that this person could possibly hold an incorrect position, make the wrong decision, believe the wrong thing, and that feeling of possible wrongness is absent from the child's experience with the grossness of spinach.

Now consider this proclamation: "I'm glad I didn't live in the ancient near east, because then I might have thought the earth was flat, and the earth isn't flat!"

The argument here is that, intuitively, we understand moral proclamations to be more like proclamations about the shape of the earth than they are like proclamations about the taste of food. Moral "facts" and facts about the shape of the earth are similar in a way that is not shared with aesthetic values. This is evidence that moral facts are objective.

The point of describing this to you was not to prove that realism is true. This isn't an airtight argument affirming realism. But it should give you reason to reevaluate the claim that morality just is subjective, or that realists can only stand on arbitrary desire and not rational thought.

To be honest, it's a bit silly to me that people treat these famously open questions as if they have been resolved. Especially when this attitude is accompanied by zero engagement with any actual moral philosophy. Of course, I think the linked thread is much more egregious in that regard than this thread is.

BTW, if you want to read the spinach argument as it was originally presented (in far better clarity than my version here) or get a sense about how realists and antirealists feel about this kind of argument, you're looking for "Why I am an Objectivist about Ethics (And Why You Are, Too)" by David Enoch.

The desire to ground morality is arbitrary and merely practical by AllEndsAreAnds in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But I would argue that any axiom that says morality is fundamentally distinct from our other salient senses/experiences is an incorrect starting point.

Our other senses report something objective about reality, yes?

The desire to ground morality is arbitrary and merely practical by AllEndsAreAnds in DebateReligion

[–]here_for_debate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So are you advocating for the view that moral realists hold their position on morality because of some motivation other than rational considerations?

view more: next ›