What difference does it make what the student's goal was?

In fact, what makes you think that the student even had a goal?

I cannot think of a culture in which in the circumstances I described the student's behavior would not be rude.

Even in East Timbuctoo, if there were a class room there, and the student behaved that way, that student would be rude. You cannot judge only the behavior. It is the behavior in those circumstances. You seem to be talking only about the behavior, outside of any context.

Much garbling of terms and arguing at cross purposes is the basic theme here though. Please be less straight forward.

Doesn't it start with: "Love and... ?"

You must have had an even duller week than I've had.

I think it matters if you are trying to determine if the student should or should not continue with that action. Perhaps this is just my own bias, but "rude" seems to have negative or pejorative connotations. Without determining what the desired ends are, how could we possibly make the determination that action has negative implications?

"Action is purposive conduct. It is not simply behavior, but behavior begot by judgments of value, aiming at a definite end and guided by ideas concerning the suitability or unsuitability of definite means. . . . It is conscious behavior. It is choosing. It is volition; it is a display of the will." - Ludwig Von Mises

It seems rather rash to project your limitations onto the universe, then regard it as fact.

It's funny, both of us seem to find our propositions lacking in context, likely due to our personal values. You seem to place more value in the cultural values, and societal context, whereas I place more value in the individuals' means/ends context.





--------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 01:08 PM ----------


!

Well, of course, "rude" is a pejorative term. Who could speak English and deny that? And if one could imagine some strange circumstance in which what the student was doing was part of a CIA ruse to expose terrorists, then, on learning that was so, I would take a different view of the student's behavior. But can we please suppose that the student was not really a CIA agent, but just a boor who had no respect. And that everything was as it seemed. (Why you should suppose the circumstances were other than I depicted them, I really do not know. Next time, give your own example, please, and let mine alone!) What I am saying is that in the absence of the student's being a CIA agent (or something of the kind) the student was being rude, and that rudeness is something that we ought to condemn. Now, what is supposed to be the matter with that? I don't see how that projects my limitations on to the world, but then maybe I am not subtle enough. As far as I can tell, your objection is that if the student was only appearing to be rude because his apparently rude behavior had some different, beneficial, goal in mind, then the student was not really being rude. Well, yeah! But what would make you think anyone would deny that? What kind of objection is that?

We seem to agree that without considering all factors which precipitated an action, it is impossible to determine the validity of said action from an absolute, values-based standpoint. Since it seems evident to me that a mere mortal human being cannot consider, or even have knowledge of, all the variables leading up to a specific action, it would be impossible to make such an absolute statement. The difference between our positions seems to be that you are comfortable with taking the leap of faith into the realm of making perfect statements of value without perfect knowledge, and that I am unwilling to do the same.

So, to sum up, my post wasn't so much refuting or objecting to your claim, as much as it was pointing out the inherent unknown in any value based statement, which you seem to want to forget or ignore for the sake of your argument.

Hi All,

What if the student had an Attention Disorder and normally came in throwing chairs, swinging from the lights, smashing windows and spitting at people - Now, after medication, he enters a little loud and inconsiderate. In comparison to his usual beheviour, don't you think he's being more than just polite? Maybe we should ask the hypothetical lecturer?

"One man's student is another man's mentor"

Thank you, and have a lovely day.

Mark...

Calling an action rude is a statement of values. According to your personal values, the student is rude. Since this is a fictional scenario, you have determined that there are no extenuating circumstances justifying the students behavior when measured against your personal values. So in this scenario, your personal values are considered absolute, and your knowledge of the factors leading to the action are also absolute. Although amusing, I'm not quite sure what this scenario has to do with reality, or is relevant to understanding what we perceive as reality.

I don't think he picked that example because it was personal. He picked a common example of something that the vast majority of people would agree is rude.

It's kind of absurd to say that doing something for selfish reasons, that annoys most people, is only subjectively rude.

Some things are defined by other peoples opinions. And the definition of rude isn't subjective.

I don't think he picked that example because it was personal. He picked a common example of something that the vast majority of people would agree is rude.

It's kind of absurd to say that doing something for selfish reasons, that annoys most people, is only subjectively rude. Some things are defined by other peoples opinions. And the definition of rude isn't subjective.

So now objective morality is determined solely by the whims of at least 51% of the populace?

So now objective morality is determined solely by the whims of at least 51% of the populace?

Is there a reason for that stance to be considered foolish (another values based pejorative), or is this just an arbitrary opinion?



All things are defined by individual's opinions, making every interpretation of phenomena equally valid. Unless there is some further qualification of what is "true" or "real" that I'm unaware of. I'm not saying the definition is up for debate, and I'm not trying to get bogged down in the mire of semantics, what I'm saying is that each individual has different criteria for what falls under the definition of "rude", and what doesn't.

Not my personal values at all.

That kind of behavior is simply called rude behavior in English.

Just as the color of a fire truck is called "red" in English. Anyone who would not call the color of the fire truck "red" would be either someone who did not know the meaning of color terms in English, or was color blind, or maybe, joking. Similarly, anyone who did not think that the student's behavior was rude would not know the meaning of the word, "rude" in English, or would have some mental problems, or would be joking. The difference between "red" and "rude" is, of course, "red" carries no moral connotations along with it, but "rude" does.

I already explained by "rude" carries those moral connotations. It is because rude behavior is condemned by most people, as it well should be! Anything else?

Objective anything has nothing to do with consensus. Objective, by definition, is that which is true mind-independently. Maybe you meant intersubjective.

Where on earth did you get such an idea. I didn't say such a foolish thing, and no one else did, so far as I can tell.

You think that whether I have a million dollars in my bank account is defined by my individual opinion? Well, when I go to withdraw $100,000 of it, I'll certainly let the bank teller know what you said.

You consider something "rude" because that is what you have been taught to call a particular phenomena. Just because that is what you have learned does not make it absolutely true.

Well, if we are meant to treat these divinations on what actions are appropriate or inappropriate as fact, I would hope that they could be considered mind-independent. I don't understand how a mind, being imperfect, could possibly conceive a perfect statement of values, or law.

So now objective morality is determined solely by the whims of at least 51% of the populace?

Is there a reason for that stance to be considered foolish (another values based pejorative), or is this just an arbitrary opinion?

All things are defined by individual's opinions, making every interpretation of phenomena equally valid. Unless there is some further qualification of what is "true" or "real" that I'm unaware of. I'm not saying the definition is up for debate, and I'm not trying to get bogged down in the mire of semantics, what I'm saying is that each individual has different criteria for what falls under the definition of "rude", and what doesn't.

Hey Jeb was the one talking about "the vast majority" being able to determine facts. Ask him

We call the moon the moon because "moon" is the word we have been taught that refers to the object the moon. So what?

I think you may be convoluting the matter. By saying that the student was "rude", we're using the definition of "rude" that is common in the English language. The value judgments come after the fact, you see?

Which is the correct side of the road to drive on? Neither is inherently better, but if everyone else is driving on a particular side, then that side is the correct side to drive on.

It's a definition.

That isn't what you are saying. You can say that if you like, but it's like saying "no two snowflakes are alike".

Well, if you mean by determine, discover, then sure. People discover facts. But our discovering them doesn't make them true; they would be true no matter if we ever discovered them or not.

I meant determine. Look at the definitions I posted, the facts are already in, apparently. Judging by your post, you aren't very familiar with (or impressed with) radical skepticism. I consider myself one, so we maybe so divergent in our ontological perspectives as to be unintelligible to one another.

That action's correctness can only be considered with specific goals in mind.

So, what does this mean? It means that an action cannot be considered rude without first having a moral meter against which to measure said action. Unless you have an objective moral code, you cannot consider any action as objectively rude.

So tell me, which are the "good" snowflakes, and which are the "evil" snowflakes? What principles do you use to determine that? Why do you use those specific criteria?

Oh, you believe that knowledge is impossible? Interesting belief. It's a false belief, but interesting nonetheless.