Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It doesn't disturb me, and I did answer. You're the one who was complaining about how I answered.
The answers to these questions will depend, inescapably, on the nature of these beings and their compatibility with human existence, especially in terms of the ability to give and receive acceptable justifications for actions. The desire and ability to coexist lead quite naturally to reasons for action. Without that desire and ability, it's all pretty moot.
We do, through the process of reasoning together.
As far as I can see, you only answered a form of the hypo which included your modifications, you have yet to answer it as written, or as clarified. If my drawing attention to that is a complaint, then yes, I did complain about how you didn't answer it.
Does that mean that if we are unable to ascertain any justifications offered by them, we are morally free to eliminate them? Or vice versa?
If we are unable to agree on a mutual course of action through reasoning process, what moral obligations and rights to we owe/retain?
Look, at this point you're either being deliberately obtuse, in which case we're done, or you have a genuinely serious lack of reading comprehension, in which case I cannot help you. I'm increasingly persuaded that you're just trolling. Here:
Let's look. I said:
No modifications: just responding to what you actually wrote. Your "clarification" afterward was worse than useless (and seized on an irrelevancy); if anything, it made what was already a poor hypothetical to begin with into complete nonsense. What is morality like in a universe that consists of nothing but a fisherman, a yeast-grower, and a lake? Fuck if I know, there's no such universe, and I've repeatedly told you that morality as I understand it is a human endeavor undertaken by humans living in human conditions. I can't tell you what morality is like for space creatures or hypothetical beings who appear ex nihilo to lay claim to fishing ponds. We can use counterfactuals to imagine possibilities, but this requires us not to be assholes to our interlocutors, and be open to having hypothetical questions clarified for purposes of useful development without whinging about people fighting the hypo. You give every impression of trying to (clumsily) thumb the scales toward an anti-realist conclusion, and no impression at all of actually trying to understand what you're being told. Don't tell me I "didn't answer it" just because you don't like the answer.
Your question is underspecified and cannot be answered in this form. You need to be at least somewhat concrete in your questions. As noted--we're not doing "pure reason" here.
Contractualism is not about mutual courses of action. It is about finding principles for the governance of behavior that cannot be reasonably rejected. It is possible that in some cases two beings will simply lack any possible common reasons on which to ground such principles, but I've never seen any evidence that any human beings occupy that position with regard to one another.
I'd first ask you to be more charitable in your assessment of me, and not ascribe motivations for which you have no real evidence. It is also most unhelpful to mock me as a troll or impugn my intellect. I am skeptical of your claims, but have yet to dispute them (except regarding whether you answered my hypo, more on that in a moment). I have so far mostly only asked for clarifications. You seem to believe that your conclusions and pronouncements flow obviously, but they do not. Much smarter academicians than I, and as generally well regarded as he, have challenged Scanlon, I assume they understood his point of view thoroughly.
While it is true I did not specify that the latecomer in my hypo had no other access to resources, neither did I suggest that he did. I know you believe that your stated presumption follows from what I did write; it might have been more helpful to ask for clarification if you believed the hypo was vague or certain factors were implied. Please note, I do not appreciate your unflattering paraphrases of my statements about your responses as being those of an "asshole," or "whinging," and that increases my skepticism of your credibility. Regardless, it seems you are unwilling to respond to my hypo as intended, so I'll let that lie, you're under no obligation to me.
--
If there are beings among us who have as sophisticated an apparatus for reason as we, and they are actors (or objects of our actions) in our midst, and yet we are unable to comprehend what objections they may be making for our moral principles (and thereby, unable to ascertain whether their objections might be reasonable), is anything owed nevertheless to them? Or do they owe anything to us? And are we then free to act toward them in any way that suits us?
--
This appears to me to be a distinction without a difference, at least on a practical level. Could you clarify?
If no human beings have ever reached a place where they could find no common reasons on which to ground their principles, where does conflict come from?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link