Is asceticism useless as an incel?

[based_meme]

So any statement about murder is always moral, whereas any claim about cutting in line is always personal? If so, I'm interested in the why because this is nonsensical to me.

If by statement you mean claim, then yes, claims about murder are normative, which makes them morally charged (or have moral weight, same difference). "Personal" in this context means morally neutral (or not morally charged) and affecting you personally. You could make some moral case that cutting in line is unethical, because it breaks the social contract, disrupts the peace, disrespects people's time, and is anti-social behavior (inherently unfair), but then it wouldn't be a personal claim, because it would then be generalizable to all people who engage in this behavior.

The claim, "I can bench press 200 kgs," for example, is not a moral claim, but an empirical claim that also happens to be personal. (That claim is false, btw, I can't - and won't ever attempt in my entire life - to bench press 200 kgs.)

Seeing as anything can be justified by simply taking the desideratum as premise, I beg to differ. Not to mention there are only two structural possibilities: either your argument is logically sound or it's worthless.

Arguments are evaluated on both their validity and soundness, but premises are evaluated only their truth values. So in order to evaluate whether or not arguments are sound the truth values of their premises need to be examined.

It's also not the case that any premise is ipso facto justifiable because it's taken for being desirable (its state of desirability is not sufficient justification). You can have a valid, but unsound, argument. You still need to show how your premises are true, if they're weak.

A strong argument against those premises? A premise that cannot be justified (and if it could why is it even a premise) cannot be rebuked either.

But they can. It happens all of the time when philosophers make arguments. They go the painstaking process of writing entire books about arguments that could be summed up in a page or two whose premises they try and justify.

Of these, virtue ethics and consequentialism simply defer the problem "downstream". In virtue ethics, moral rectitude is to be virtuous, but what is a virtue?

I don't know much about the system of virtue ethics on any deep level. You'd have to investigate the works for a strong answer, I'm afraid.

Ditto for consequentialism. NB ain't theology and deontology basically the same thing -- i.e., moral rectitude being accordance with some set of rules?

It's similar, but still fundamentally different. Read Kant and then try to compare each system of ethics. You'll soon see that there's little in common beyond intentionality.

Regardless, if the definition of moral rectitude is in the eye of the beholder, how can

possibly be true? I can simply choose not to define moral rectitude, no?

Big if. Your operating under a framework that it is, so that is something you must take as a given. What exactly is your framework?

What I meant to convey was that something being undesirable doesn't necessarily equate it to being morally "bad".

Yes, I agree. There's no problem there.

Despite both often being undesirable for one of the parties involved, why is murder "bad" but divorce not so much these days?

Are you asking why is murder always bad, but divorce isn't always? Or are you asking why murder is more bad than divorce?

In Christian America and Europe, divorce was "bad" and burning "witches" was once "good". Getting back on topic, your appeal to instinct does apply to subjective undesirability. However, it doesn't ipso facto translate to moral "badness".

It is generally the case that things which are undesirable are bad (pain, discomfort, trauma), hence why they are considered undesirable. But there also some cases where things that are undesirable (working out, studying hard) are good.

You're correct in that undesirability does not translate into moral badness, and I never claimed otherwise. I don't understand your point of contention here. Please elaborate.

I don't understand. How does making a claim that's congruent with intent constitute hypocrisy? NB when I wrote

I should've writ

It appears I'm not at my sharpest. Yet again my excuses.

That's fine, don't worry about the error. My response is the same. In the hypothetical liar example the liar is a hypocrite because the act of hypocrisy in this instance is his (normative) claim about lying itself. The behavior - the condition required for hypocrisy - is baked in to the utterance of his words, whereas with other acts of hypocrisy there are usually further actions required, like cheating (gambling, infidelity, taxes etc.).

 

[Ahnfeltia]

If by statement you mean claim, then yes, claims about murder are normative, which makes them morally charged (or have moral weight, same difference). "Personal" in this context means morally neutral (or not morally charged) and affecting you personally. You could make some moral case that cutting in line is unethical, because it breaks the social contract, disrupts the peace, disrespects people's time, and is anti-social behavior (inherently unfair), but then it wouldn't be a personal claim, because it would then be generalizable to all people who engage in this behavior.

How is

"People who cut in line shouldn't be served"

a personal claim then? It clearly seeks to punish (and therefore a fortiori condemn) all who cut in line without any reference to anything personal.

Arguments are evaluated on both their validity and soundness, but premises are evaluated only their truth values. So in order to evaluate whether or not arguments are sound the truth values of their premises need to be examined.

It's also not the case that any premise is ipso facto justifiable because it's taken for being desirable (its state of desirability is not sufficient justification). You can have a valid, but unsound, argument. You still need to show how your premises are true, if they're weak.

But they can. It happens all of the time when philosophers make arguments. They go the painstaking process of writing entire books about arguments that could be summed up in a page or two whose premises they try and justify.

I think our definitions once again don't match up because I disagree with almost everything you wrote here. By premise I meant a proper premise AKA an axiom. Justifiable premises can simply be traced back to unjustifiable premises via logic after all. I'll use axiom going forward to avoid confusion. An arguments consists of axioms and inference rules. In-between premises merely enhance readability. Since axioms cannot be justified, the validity of an argument is its soundness. Valid yet unsound arguments are therefore oxymoronic.

Big if. Your operating under a framework that it is, so that is something you must take as a given. What exactly is your framework?

I asked you to define me moral rectitude and you literally said "pick your poison"

You can look to the Big Four: virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, and theology (whichever flavor that as an established moral system, pick your poison).

I'm assuming if I can pick my poison, so can anyone else.

Are you asking why is murder always bad, but divorce isn't always? Or are you asking why murder is more bad than divorce?

It was a rhetorical question.

You're correct in that undesirability does not translate into moral badness, and I never claimed otherwise. I don't understand your point of contention here. Please elaborate.

Take this claim of yours

I'm sure you already intuitive know that assault and murder are both "bad"

What we all know is that assault and murder are undesirable. However, by your own admission, this doesn't translate to moral "badness". You also contested that the reasons for assault and murder being "bad" were cultural, but what else can they be?

In the hypothetical liar example the liar is a hypocrite because the act of hypocrisy in this instance is his (normative) claim about lying itself. The behavior - the condition required for hypocrisy - is baked in to the utterance of his words, whereas with other acts of hypocrisy there are usually further actions required, like cheating (gambling, infidelity, taxes etc.).

I still don't understand. You said

Hypocrisy when intents are incongruent with observable actions

His action -- lying -- is pursuant to his intent tho? What am I missing?

 

[based_meme]

How is

a personal claim then? It clearly seeks to punish (and therefore a fortiori condemn) all who cut in line without any reference to anything personal.

Looking back, that was admittedly a bad example. Sorry for any confusion.

I think our definitions once again don't match up because I disagree with almost everything you wrote here. By premise I meant a proper premise AKA an axiom. Justifiable premises can simply be traced back to unjustifiable premises via logic after all. I'll use axiom going forward to avoid confusion. An arguments consists of axioms and inference rules. In-between premises merely enhance readability. Since axioms cannot be justified, the validity of an argument is its soundness. Valid yet unsound arguments are therefore oxymoronic.

Axioms are not premises. Axioms are assumed to be true as a starting point moving forward, but premises may or may not be true. Premises may require justification (e.g., if their truth is contested), while axioms do not.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood validity and soundness. Validity is when the logical structure of the argument is correct. Any of the premises may or may not be true. Soundness, however, requires all of the premises to be true. All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are necessarily sound.

I asked you to define me moral rectitude and you literally said "pick your poison"

I'm assuming if I can pick my poison, so can anyone else.

That expression was referring to pick your theological poison i.e., it doesn't really matter which theological tradition you pick (because they all converge to some divine source for their morals, typically capital g God), if you choose that as your foundation to establish moral rectitude amongst the four broad categories of ethical systems.

It was a rhetorical question.

Take this claim of yours

What we all know is that assault and murder are undesirable. However, by your own admission, this doesn't translate to moral "badness". You also contested that the reasons for assault and murder being "bad" were cultural, but what else can they be?

Our intuition appeals to things other than (or in addition to) undesirability as a factor when reaching a moral conclusion that murder is bad. For example, we also appeal to our survival and self-preservation instincts and reasonably and correctly infer that others also have the same instincts. At a much higher level, we also appeal to things like the natural right to life and bodily autonomy (even though some of us may not articulate it as such).

Some people, however, may adopt or construct a moral system in which undesirability is the base condition for evaluating moral badness. Obvious problems arise, like the universality of desirability i.e., not all things are equally desirable/undesirable for all. Using undesirability as the primary factor and determinant for moral evaluations quickly breaks down when you apply it to trivial things, like food choices. Some people absolutely despise vanilla ice cream, for example, and eating it will always be undesirable for them, so it makes no sense to make claims like "eating vanilla ice cream is immoral."

I still don't understand. You said

His action -- lying -- is pursuant to his intent tho? What am I missing?

The lying itself is the act that you observe. Replace lying with any other act that doesn't require the act of speaking (because speaking some things has truth values, whereas an act like cheating doesn't have truth values - you do the act or not do the act, there's no "true" or "false" to those actions), then if you observe that act after the person speaks out against that same act, it's hypocrisy.

Why are we taking a fine tooth comb over something so banal as explaining what hypocrisy is? What's the problem here? Having typed that previous paragraph feels deflating, like we're going over useless and pointless details when we could be making headway into more interesting items.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Looking back, that was admittedly a bad example. Sorry for any confusion.

np

Axioms are not premises. Axioms are assumed to be true as a starting point moving forward, but premises may or may not be true. Premises may require justification (e.g., if their truth is contested), while axioms do not.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood validity and soundness. Validity is when the logical structure of the argument is correct. Any of the premises may or may not be true. Soundness, however, requires all of the premises to be true. All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are necessarily sound.

Okay. I'll use them as such going forward.

That expression was referring to pick your theological poison i.e., it doesn't really matter which theological tradition you pick (because they all converge to some divine source for their morals, typically capital g God), if you choose that as your foundation to establish moral rectitude amongst the four broad categories of ethical systems.

Ah ok my bad. Still, you're saying "if you choose that as your foundation to establish moral rectitude" which still puts the definition of moral rectitude in the eye of the beholder, no?

Our intuition appeals to things other than (or in addition to) undesirability as a factor when reaching a moral conclusion that murder is bad. For example, we also appeal to our survival and self-preservation instincts and reasonably and correctly infer that others also have the same instincts. At a much higher level, we also appeal to things like the natural right to life and bodily autonomy (even though some of us may not articulate it as such).

You can use intuition to articulate personal badness (undesirability) sometimes even for others as you pointed out, but the schism between personal and moral badness remains.

Some people, however, may adopt or construct a moral system in which undesirability is the base condition for evaluating moral badness. Obvious problems arise, like the universality of desirability i.e., not all things are equally desirable/undesirable for all. Using undesirability as the primary factor and determinant for moral evaluations quickly breaks down when you apply it to trivial things, like food choices. Some people absolutely despise vanilla ice cream, for example, and eating it will always be undesirable for them, so it makes no sense to make claims like "eating vanilla ice cream is immoral."

that's the snag ain't it? Our feelings are subjective, so basing morality off of that is problematic. On the flip side though, a morality completely detached from feelings serves nobody. Which is why all the way back I said

I don't really like ascribing moral value to conduct.

hello full circle my old friend

if you observe that act after the person speaks out against that same act, it's hypocrisy

you replaced intent with speech and my whole point was that you can't

Why are we taking a fine tooth comb over something so banal as explaining what hypocrisy is? What's the problem here? Having typed that previous paragraph feels deflating, like we're going over useless and pointless details when we could be making headway into more interesting items.

Nitpicking is a proclivity of mine, tho I'm sure you noticed. You can also make the case getting the definitions straight is important because God's in the details yada yada. If you wanna drop it, feel free to do so. Just don't reply to the things you wanna talk about anymore. No hard feelings.

 

[based_meme]

Ah ok my bad. Still, you're saying "if you choose that as your foundation to establish moral rectitude" which still puts the definition of moral rectitude in the eye of the beholder, no?

Think of it more like reaching the same conclusion from different premises. Two separate moral systems can conclude that, "murder is wrong," for example," but have wildly different reasons.

You can use intuition to articulate personal badness (undesirability) sometimes even for others as you pointed out, but the schism between personal and moral badness remains.

Correct, which is why you need strong justifications for moral goodness/badness, as they are to be universalizable i.e., applicable universally.

that's the snag ain't it? Our feelings are subjective, so basing morality off of that is problematic. On the flip side though, a morality completely detached from feelings serves nobody. Which is why all the way back I said

This is where you're mistaken. We've already established that a moral system based on feelings has either no foundation or an extremely brittle one and is like paper mache.

I strongly urge you to seriously consider studying ethical systems. I suspect that you'll easily see how detached from feelings they are, as well as their effective praxis.

you replaced intent with speech and my whole point was that you can't

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. I argued for why speech - in your example - is the action for which the condition of hypocrisy is met.

Nitpicking is a proclivity of mine, tho I'm sure you noticed. You can also make the case getting the definitions straight is important because God's in the details yada yada. If you wanna drop it, feel free to do so.

Nitpicking is fine - and in fact welcome - when it's necessary. I just don't think it was necessary here, because I know that you know what the meaning was, so we were going back and forth over basically nothing of import when we could be spending that energy elsewhere in productive posting.

Just don't reply to the things you wanna talk about anymore.

I like to be thorough when responding in these sort of posts.

No hard feelings.

None at all.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

This is where you're mistaken. We've already established that a moral system based on feelings has either no foundation or an extremely brittle one and is like paper mache.

I strongly urge you to seriously consider studying ethical systems. I suspect that you'll easily see how detached from feelings they are, as well as their effective praxis.

By "completely detached from feelings" I meant completely and utterly detached from feelings no matter how indirectly. Ultimately "murder is bad" surely has to descend from a collective disapproval of (at least in-group) murder on the personal level. Taken synchronically on paper, ethics might seem detached from feelings, but diachronically I can scarcely imagine that's the case.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. I argued for why speech - in your example - is the action for which the condition of hypocrisy is met.

How does one judge potentially hypocritical speech? By the intent therebehind (assuming it's known) or the contents expressed? the judgment mayn't always be the same (as evinced by the liar example). It seems to me like I'm using the former criterion whereas you're using the latter.

None at all.

I meant "no hard feelings from my side if you don't reply to certain topics" but I'm glad there's no hard feelings from your side as well.

 

[based_meme]

By "completely detached from feelings" I meant completely and utterly detached from feelings no matter how indirectly. Ultimately "murder is bad" surely has to descend from a collective disapproval of (at least in-group) murder on the personal level. Taken synchronically on paper, ethics might seem detached from feelings, but diachronically I can scarcely imagine that's the case.

Have you read any of the works on ethics?

How does one judge potentially hypocritical speech? By the intent therebehind (assuming it's known) or the contents expressed? the judgment mayn't always be the same (as evinced by the liar example). It seems to me like I'm using the former criterion whereas you're using the latter.

By the information available to you. In your hypothetical "always liar" example we have knowledge that the person always speaks with the intent to lie. Note that hypocrisy isn't itself an act, but an attribute. You don't do/don't do hypocrisy (but you can act hypocritically - through additional actions, as aforementioned). You are/aren't a hypocrite.

I meant "no hard feelings from my side if you don't reply to certain topics" but I'm glad there's no hard feelings from your side as well.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Have you read any of the works on ethics?

I've watched videos on some philosophers whom I'd call ethicists (e.g., Stirner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) but I've never properly read any ethical works.

By the information available to you. In your hypothetical "always liar" example we have knowledge that the person always speaks with the intent to lie.

But how then could a lying liar be hypocritical?

 

[based_meme]

I've watched videos on some philosophers whom I'd call ethicists (e.g., Stirner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) but I've never properly read any ethical works.

You should. Dig into the texts and be critical with it.

But how then could a lying liar be hypocritical?

Two reasons. One, in the contrived example, we already know that he's lying. Two (which adds to the first), as I mentioned before, in that instance (always liar) the lie itself is the hypocritical act (because of what we already know before the fact). If we didn't know that he always lies (or lied in this instance), then we don't have enough information to conclude that he's a hypocrite (or that hypocrisy occurred).

 

[Ahnfeltia]

You should. Dig into the texts and be critical with it.

Got any recommendations then? Preferably not the most obstruse work you know. My vacation is just about over though, so no guarantees I'll read it anytime soon.

Two reasons. One, in the contrived example, we already know that he's lying. Two (which adds to the first), as I mentioned before, in that instance (always liar) the lie itself is the hypocritical act (because of what we already know before the fact). If we didn't know that he always lies (or lied in this instance), then we don't have enough information to conclude that he's a hypocrite (or that hypocrisy occurred).

I just ain't getting it.

 

[based_meme]

Got any recommendations then? Preferably not the most obstruse work you know. My vacation is just about over though, so no guarantees I'll read it anytime soon.

Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics -Aristotle

The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals -Immaneul Kant

A Treatise of Human Nature -David Hume

There's a whole lot more, but that should cover your bases. How abstruse any of it is will depend on you.

I just ain't getting it.

Not important. Don't worry about it.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

How abstruse any of it is will depend on you.

 

[based_meme]

In fairness, I only read excerpts of Aristotle's book for a course. The other two I did read, but that was many, many moons ago.