What philosophy offends you most?

[Ecurb]

Hmm. You don't consider, say, stealing someone's car, burglarizing or burning down their house, draining their bank accounts via some sort of identity theft, seizing their crops, etc., to be injuries, i.e., damages to their welfare?

Don't steal anyone's slave mistress! That's my rule of thumb (and probably Jefferson's, too).

However, you are changing the discussion from being about "freedom" to being about "damaging welfare". Also, your question is loaded by assuming property rights in the first place. Why not ask, "Do you think coming upon an apple tree and eating the apples damages someone else's welfare?"

I suppose driving cars damages the welfare of others by polluting the air -- but that is equally true whether one is driving one's own car or someone else's. "Stealing" is only possible given property rights. Driving a car that nobody else is using does not necessarily harm anyone (except by polluting).

[GE Morton]

Hmm. You don't consider, say, stealing someone's car, burglarizing or burning down their house, draining their bank accounts via some sort of identity theft, seizing their crops, etc., to be injuries, i.e., damages to their welfare?

Don't steal anyone's slave mistress! That's my rule of thumb (and probably Jefferson's, too).

Ah. So instead of answering the question, you reply with an ad hominem about Jefferson?

However, you are changing the discussion from being about "freedom" to being about "damaging welfare".

No, not changing anything. The question was, "What is political freedom?" My answer was, "The freedom to act in any way one wishes as long as it inflicts no injuries or losses on others."

Also, your question is loaded by assuming property rights in the first place.

Er, the question was not, "What are rights?," but, "What is political freedom?"

Why not ask, "Do you think coming upon an apple tree and eating the apples damages someone else's welfare?"

Sure you could, if that were the topic. The answer would be, "No."

You're floundering, Ecurb.

[Ecurb]

You're floundering, Ecurb.

No I'm not. But we're off topic. The philosophies that offend me the most are those which claim objectivity. The delusional conceit of that claim is annoying.

I suppose hypocrisy is also annoying. Is that you, Thomas Jefferson? ( I think that Jefferson is America's favorite rapist, unless that honor goes to Kobe Bryant.)

[GE Morton]

No I'm not. But we're off topic. The philosophies that offend me the most are those which claim objectivity.

Then you'd fit right in with the PM crowd. Without objectivity there would be no science, no logic, and no possibility of a rational ethics.

I suppose hypocrisy is also annoying. Is that you, Thomas Jefferson? ( I think that Jefferson is America's favorite rapist, unless that honor goes to Kobe Bryant.)

We've been through that sophomoric "Jefferson was a hypocrite" ad hominem at length in another thread (can't remember if you were involved). No interest in re-visiting it.

[Ecurb]

Then you'd fit right in with the PM crowd. Without objectivity there would be no science, no logic, and no possibility of a rational ethics.

Thanks, GE. Post modernism has made trenchant critiques of phony objectivity, such as yours. Also one can use logic to support biased, prejudiced, subjectively formed opinions, as you clearly demonstrate. Ethics cannot be derived "objectively"; they must rely in the end on subjective opinions.

[GE Morton]

Ethics cannot be derived "objectively"; they must rely in the end on subjective opinions.

Then we're condemned to the same chaotic moral Tower of Babel, and the same succession of idiotic ideologies, pogroms, oppressions, plundering, wars, and genocides those subjective opinions generate, and the subject should be dismissed by philosophers as non-rational and thus intellectually intractable.

[Sy Borg]

…and rant about woke pandering to them, you do the bidding of Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch.

No, I don't, because if my "rants" against wokeism are interpreted by far-right conservatives as coming from one of them, I'll tell them that they are wrong, because I'm not one of them! Can you imagine that I politically dislike both far-left (postmodern) socialism (as represented by wokeism) and far-right conservatism or fascism!

For instance, here's Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán's speech at the opening of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Texas 2022:

https://miniszterelnok.hu/speech-by-pri ... pac-texas/

Which political ideology does Orbán represent?

* authoritarian conservatism (illiberalism)
* ethnocultural ultranationalism
* Christian fundamentalism (Christianism)
In short: Christian fascism (Christofascism)

According to Orbán, "this war is a culture war" against "the Woke Globalist Goliath".

Note that he doesn't only use "woke" to refer to what I use it to refer to, viz. postmodern socialism (critical postmodernism), but also to liberalism and social democracy, and presumably also to moderate, non-illiberal conservatism as represented by Christian democracy!

It is no accident that "goulash fascist" Orbán was invited as a speaker to the Conservative Political Action Conference, because the US Republican Party is on the brink of becoming a Christofascist party!

Fair comment. However, it's possible to unwittingly do the bidding of those we oppose.

Orban is indeed at the vanguard of democracy's destruction. One by one, nations are being taken over by criminals who line the pockets of their family and allies while stealing from the people, all the time claiming moral high ground via hyper-conservative social policies. The standard dictator's playbook. If not resisted, toxic Christianity has the potential to lead the west in a new dark age. Erdogan's Turkey gives us a clear view of what happens when a democracy reverts to a dictatorship - economic and social ruin. Hungary, no doubt, will follow Turkey into disaster.

Eastern Europe has not yet recovered from Soviet abuses. Poland is another with weak separation between church and state.

[Sy Borg]

Ethics cannot be derived "objectively"; they must rely in the end on subjective opinions.

Then we're condemned to the same chaotic moral Tower of Babel, and the same succession of idiotic ideologies, pogroms, oppressions, plundering, wars, and genocides those subjective opinions generate, and the subject should be dismissed by philosophers as non-rational and thus intellectually intractable.

It seems to me that the "objective ethics" that you have claimed to exist on this forum for some time seem to exactly coincide with your own. Coincidence?

[GE Morton]

It seems to me that the "objective ethics" that you have claimed to exist on this forum for some time seem to exactly coincide with your own. Coincidence?

Not at all. It would be inconsistent of me not to embrace an ethics based on objective facts and the logical implications of them.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that the "objective ethics" that you have claimed to exist on this forum for some time seem to exactly coincide with your own. Coincidence?

Not at all. It would be inconsistent of me not to embrace an ethics based on objective facts and the logical implications of them.

However, I have pointed out many times that your views are not objective, but anthropocentric.

Anthropocentrism "offends" me, in that I see it as a cognitive distortion. I have no issue with humans putting humans first. All species do that. However, if we are being clear-eyed about ourselves, we would admit that we favour ourselves, that we tend to strict limits to our "objectivity". If other species didn't exist, then humanity would be much more objective, but still subject to what some refer to as "national solipsism".

[Ecurb]

Then we're condemned to the same chaotic moral Tower of Babel, and the same succession of idiotic ideologies, pogroms, oppressions, plundering, wars, and genocides those subjective opinions generate, and the subject should be dismissed by philosophers as non-rational and thus intellectually intractable.

Your obsession with objectivity and logical reasoning does not appear to have improved your ability to use these tools. Why would it follow that an ethics based on subjective values would lead to idiotic ideologies, pograms, plundering, etc.? You cannot reasonably conclude that values (which you yourself point out are always subjective) must be dismissed as either conducive to morally repugnant behaviors, or as intellectually intractable. They are neither.

[LuckyR]

Perhaps you forgot but we're not discussing employer rights, we're conversing on whether the employee who actually cares about their job, acts illogically when they say offensive things publicly, knowing that there could be consequences. And then whining about said consequences (which you noted were perfectly reasonable).

As I said, it depends upon what was said and what were the consequences. That employee has no grounds for whining about that consequence.

Then we are in agreement that my example, a classic complaint about "Cancel Culture" (of course there are others too), has "no grounds".

[Pattern-chaser]

The philosophies that offend me the most are those which claim objectivity.

Then you'd fit right in with the PM crowd. Without objectivity there would be no science, no logic, and no possibility of a rational ethics.

Even restricting ourselves to philosophy — this is a philosophy forum, after all — the word "objectivity" carries a whole spectrum of meanings, and it is highly likely that you are both using a different definition, and that your definitions are not the same as the one I'm thinking of. We need to define this term if we are to avoid the pointless semantic squabbles we have all seen so often in the past.

Ethics cannot be derived "objectively"; they must rely in the end on subjective opinions.

Then we're condemned to the same chaotic moral Tower of Babel, and the same succession of idiotic ideologies, pogroms, oppressions, plundering, wars, and genocides those subjective opinions generate, and the subject should be dismissed by philosophers as non-rational and thus intellectually intractable.

And so we reach the point: 'non-objective' or 'unscientific' topics are not proper topics for discussion, and no decent philosopher would/should consider them? If our philosophies cannot meet the needs humans place upon them — i.e., (attempt to) answer the questions humans find to be important — they are useless and pointless. What use is it to Alfie if Bruno simply dismisses his concerns/interests as unworthy of attention?

Philosophy concerns any thought, topic, or idea that may be given serious consideration, without constraints or limits.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, if we are reasoning precisely, nothing is "self-evident". We are not talking of an everyday 'take it for granted' here. Even an axiom is defined to be something we accept as being true without any justification. This is even more than that: its 'truth' is simply asserted — "it is self-evident" — with no mention of it being an unjustified assumption.

The axioms and postulates of every theory are unjustified assumptions --- which means that no justification for them is given within the theory; they're accepted as true a priori. But that doesn't mean they have no justification.

Er, yes, it does. If we had a justification for these assertions, we would use it. But, thanks to Herr Gödel, we know that any logical system is — must be — incomplete, and these assertions simply reflect that. Nevertheless, they remain unjustified.

Usually the justification lies in common understanding and experience.

In other words, there isn't one. The 'justification' you describe is unfounded and unjustified.

When you say, "If we are reasoning precisely, nothing is self-evident," you seem to be assuming that "self-evident" means, or implies, "analytical," or "tautologous" (logically true). That isn't what it means. Euclid's "A straight line may drawn between any two points" is not a logical truth, but it is self-evident.

A 'self-evident' proposition is its own evidence. That's a bit, er, circular, don't you think? It claims that the idea is so 'obvious' that no further explanation is required. Sloppy thinking; about as sloppy as it gets... This is not philosophy, or science either. It's just intellectual cowardice and (self-) deception. If we don't know, we should state that we don't know, and not pretend to knowledge we don't have.

[Consul]

Fair comment. However, it's possible to unwittingly do the bidding of those we oppose.

I think there are good reasons to reject wokeism (postmodern critical theory with its various branches), and if the liberal Leftists & Centrists are too shy or cowardly to tackle it, then only the right-wing Extremists will do so (who loathe both postmodern and non-postmodern socialism)!

Orban is indeed at the vanguard of democracy's destruction. One by one, nations are being taken over by criminals who line the pockets of their family and allies while stealing from the people, all the time claiming moral high ground via hyper-conservative social policies. The standard dictator's playbook. If not resisted, toxic Christianity has the potential to lead the west in a new dark age. Erdogan's Turkey gives us a clear view of what happens when a democracy reverts to a dictatorship - economic and social ruin. Hungary, no doubt, will follow Turkey into disaster.
Eastern Europe has not yet recovered from Soviet abuses. Poland is another with weak separation between church and state.

Unfortunately, there is a new plague of dictatorship: Orban, Putin, Lukashenko (Belarus), Erdogan, Xi Jinping, Bolsonaro (Brazil), Assad (Syria), Modi (India—where the far-right ideology of Hindutva is rampant).