They absolutely do. In aggregate, American society considers murder to be a serious crime.
In aggregate does not mean everyone agrees.
Your post contradicts itself by stating societies don't agree then stating societies virtually agree on some values. That's what agreeing in aggregate means.
American society does overwhelmingly consider murder a serious crime. What should be considered murder, not so much.
My post has no contradiction. That societies have some near universally shared values in no way contradicts that some values can highly vary within that same society to the point where they are contested, sometimes vigorously, sometimes for years. American history provides examples of just how severe conflicting values within a society can get.
They absolutely do. In aggregate, American society considers murder to be a serious crime.
In aggregate does not mean everyone agrees.
Your post contradicts itself by stating societies don't agree then stating societies virtually agree on some values. That's what agreeing in aggregate means.
American society does overwhelmingly consider murder a serious crime. What should be considered murder, not so much.
My post has no contradiction. That societies have some near universally shared values in no way contradicts that some values can highly vary within that same society to the point where they are contested, sometimes vigorously, sometimes for years. American history provides examples of just how severe conflicting values within a society can get.
None of that changes that ideas society thinks are worthless in aggregate will be discarded or relegated to being shared exclusively within a small subgroup outside of the attention of the larger society group.
No one implied that every idea is universally accepted or discarded. I'm not sure why you're even arguing that point.
That's more to do with the misnomer of treating "American society" as a singular entity, as opposed to a collection of societies/cultures/economic groups living under one banner.
Also that doesn't really dispute the "agreeing in aggregate". A norm defined by aggregate does not preclude dispute and minority opinions from also existing beneath it. When those minority opinions shift into majority (or have a means to be enforced over the majority) it shifts the aggregate.
It's also still a very funky side-grade, as majority opinion, and even individual motive, still doesn't change the original premise of the discussion. As this largely relies on the conversation being about values that are weighed subjectively.
When the original point was that individual motives does not change the structured literal reason for something to take place, and that the actions taken due to those motives mechanically harms obtaining accurate results, the argument of personal subjectivity is entirely tangential to the objective statement therein.
No one implied that every idea is universally accepted or discarded. I'm not sure why you're even arguing that point.
I never argued that point. Whether you can't understand what I say or are deliberately misrepresenting it there is no point in continuing this exchange.
Comments
No one implied that every idea is universally accepted or discarded. I'm not sure why you're even arguing that point.
The topic is essentially this is happening on this day, the end. It doesn't provide much on which to base extended discussion.
I'll happily return to talking about EA if anyone has something specific in mind.
Also that doesn't really dispute the "agreeing in aggregate". A norm defined by aggregate does not preclude dispute and minority opinions from also existing beneath it. When those minority opinions shift into majority (or have a means to be enforced over the majority) it shifts the aggregate.
It's also still a very funky side-grade, as majority opinion, and even individual motive, still doesn't change the original premise of the discussion. As this largely relies on the conversation being about values that are weighed subjectively.
When the original point was that individual motives does not change the structured literal reason for something to take place, and that the actions taken due to those motives mechanically harms obtaining accurate results, the argument of personal subjectivity is entirely tangential to the objective statement therein.
I never argued that point. Whether you can't understand what I say or are deliberately misrepresenting it there is no point in continuing this exchange.
Just compare the originating conversation to the present one to see how dramatic the drift has been.
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light