Where is the hope in atheism?

[TLK Valentine]

Where's the problem?

It's my opinion that such a person is harming themselves by wasting their life. If I cared or had some sort of emotional investment in such a person, I'd be inclined to make my opinion known.

By saying that in specific situations, death may be the better option, you're reaffirming that under normal circumstances, it is not.

Certainly. But what is normal, who decides on it, and who enforces it?

"What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly." -- Morticia Addams.

I am not talking about extreme scenarios (none of which qualify as suicide)

In your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of many others.

--I'm talking about the suicidally depressed person for whom death is subjectively better than life. If the preference for life over death is merely subjective, then there's no reason for them not to kill themselves.

Sounds like an extreme scenario to me.

Why are we talking about proselytization at all if you think it's perfectly acceptable? If someone starts complaining about something to me, I tend to assume they have a problem with it.

I can't explain why you keep coming back to it. It came up earlier in passing, I voiced my opinion on it, and was content to consider the matter settled.

Aren't you?

 

[bhsmte]

Every subjectivist, since the two things can be equally subjectively meaningful. Your sports team can in fact be more meaningful to you than your family, if that's the way the cards fall. And there's no objective reason why they shouldn't.



Define "harmful." Then give me a valid reason why suicide is "harmful" that doesn't assume that life is objectively better than death. The fact that you won't be able to do so is precisely why I view your position as harmful.

I discussed possible objective standards pages ago. You refused to engage entirely, for reasons that escape me. I don't see the point in trying again.



Yes, any ideology that refuses to insist that women are of equal intrinsic value to men is potentially harmful to me. Relativism is such an ideology, as it makes "equal intrinsic value" a matter of personal opinion, and given how civilizations usually oppress women, I don't relish our odds if public opinion turns against us once more and you guys have nothing of any real value to say.



I'm already used to it. It's an obstruction tactic used by quite a few of the atheists on this forum, so I was surprised since you'd previously seemed reasonable. If you're not going to give a response that actually furthers conversation, why bother at all?



I don't know. You were the one who initially had a problem, though we now seem to have established that proselytization is perfectly fine and Christians justified in declaring your existence meaningless, since they might see your approach to meaning as a case of self-harm. So I'm not sure why you were speaking out against this before.

Round and round in circles we go.

You keep making assumptions without evidence to support. You have failed to support what is objective and what isn't, with anything but opinion. You keep putting words in people's mouths, while refusing to directly address questions to clarify your position and continue to talk down to others who disagree.

With all that, no need in communicating any further, as it is quite clear, the same will continue.

 

[Silmarien]

It's my opinion that such a person is harming themselves by wasting their life. If I cared or had some sort of emotional investment in such a person, I'd be inclined to make my opinion known.

How are they wasting their life? If they subjectively think that their sports team is more important than their family, then following their sports team seems to be the better usage of their life. I would see something like this as objectively harmful to the quality of life, but if we refuse to try to figure out a standard for how to determine that, I don't see how we can call anything harmful at all. Otherwise you're just imposing your subjective preferences on someone else.

Certainly. But what is normal, who decides on it, and who enforces it?

My best guess would be that there's an objective standard for a psychologically healthy human being. If there's no such thing as normal and abnormal, then you're going to have trouble identifying mental illness as genuine problems instead of simply a different mode of being, and it might be the OCD talking, but I think it's quite clear that they're actual problems.

What's normal for the spider can be chaos for the fly, but it shouldn't be chaos for a second spider as well. I don't think we should treat each specific individual as its own separate species with a way of approaching the world which is uniquely its own. It's not going to be good for one person to eat healthily and for another to starve themselves to death.

Sounds like an extreme scenario to me.

Does it? Do you really think that someone who's suicidally depressed should go kill themselves, then? I don't see that as at all similar to something like jumping out of a window to avoid a fire. I would sooner say that there's a problem with their state of mind that needs to be addressed than that death is subjectively good for them.

Round and round in circles we go.

You keep making assumptions without evidence to support. You have failed to support what is objective and what isn't, with anything but opinion. You keep putting words in people's mouths, while refusing to directly address questions to clarify your position and continue to talk down to others who disagree.

With all that, no need in communicating any further, as it is quite clear, the same will continue.

I'm not putting words in people's mouths. I'm just getting a bit Socratic and challenging anything that catches my attention. Sometimes this includes stuff that I actually agree with and want to push further. I've switched from arguing for nihilism to arguing for realism, for example, because the nihilism seemed to end up with absurdities like the conclusion that pain doesn't actually exist. This is confrontational, sure, but it's not intended to be a matter of talking down to people. If I've done that to someone who wasn't condescending in their own right (and I might have with Valentine), I apologize.

Anyway, where's your evidence for your claim that everything is simply subjective? We're talking about metaethics, not science, so I'm not sure what sort of evidence you expect to find for any position. If you want something resembling a scientific standard for objectivity, you can just ask, and I'd be happy to refer you to some of the relevant work, like George Vaillant's Spiritual Evolution. If you fail to specify exactly how you want me to clarify my position, that's your fault. If you give me a direct question, I'll answer it. If you then ignore the answer (which you did), that's on you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How are they wasting their life? If they subjectively think that their sports team is more important than their family, then following their sports team seems to be the better usage of their life.

And that's their opinion, with which I, in my opinion, disagree.

But again, unless I have a reason to care or get involved, I wouldn't.

I would see something like this as objectively harmful to the quality of life, but if we refuse to try to figure out a standard for how to determine that, I don't see how we can call anything harmful at all. Otherwise you're just imposing your subjective preferences on someone else.

And you aren't? Merely calling it objective doesn't make it so.

My best guess would be that there's an objective standard for a psychologically healthy human being.

Read that highlighted portion again -- a few times -- before making proclamations about objectivity...

If there's no such thing as normal and abnormal, then you're going to have trouble identifying mental illness as genuine problems instead of simply a different mode of being, and it might be the OCD talking, but I think it's quite clear that they're actual problems.

Which raises the question of where is the line between, say, eccentricity, and mental illness? Can you objectively tell me where? Can anyone?

Take someone like Joshua Norton:

Emperor Norton - Wikipedia

You might call him a deranged lunatic; I call him an interesting historical figure, and of course, the people of San Francisco called him a folk hero.

Objectively speaking, who is right?

What's normal for the spider can be chaos for the fly, but it shouldn't be chaos for a second spider as well. I don't think we should treat each specific individual as its own separate species with a way of approaching the world which is uniquely its own. It's not going to be good for one person to eat healthily and for another to starve themselves to death.

One step at a time, friend -- you haven't even defined "normal" yet, and you're already looking to enforce it. Remember some other words of wisdom from Morticia Addams: "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc"

Does it? Do you really think that someone who's suicidally depressed should go kill themselves, then? I don't see that as at all similar to something like jumping out of a window to avoid a fire. I would sooner say that there's a problem with their state of mind that needs to be addressed than that death is subjectively good for them.

I agree -- there is a problem. Now you're the one talking about an extreme circumstance -- in the opposite direction; a case where the vast majority would agree that death is not better.

But majority =/= objectivity. There is a line somewhere between "I'm depressed because my girlfriend left me" and "I'm trapped on the observation deck of the WTC... where exactly that line is, however, is subjective.

 

[Silmarien]

And you aren't? Merely calling it objective doesn't make it so.

Not in the same way, no. If I think something is objectively problematic, then I don't think that I'm merely imposing my subjective view on someone else. It's not just a matter of my will against theirs--I actually think there is something wrong with what they are doing that can and should be corrected. How problems ought to be addressed is a separate question, but I'm comfortable saying that the oppression of women historically has been a societal evil that needed and still needs to be fixed. I do not know how I could care about women's rights while simultaneously holding them to be nothing more than a cultural preference.

There's a very big difference between thinking that competing ideologies can be adjudicated, and thinking that they can't and then trying anyway.

Read that highlighted portion again -- a few times -- before making proclamations about objectivity...

My best guess is that the external world exists. My best guess is that science produces reasonably accurate models of reality. Perhaps we are defining "objectivity" differently? I don't believe in certainty. What effect does this have upon realism about the external world, science, or values? It disqualifies naive approaches, but it certainly doesn't destroy anything.

Which raises the question of where is the line between, say, eccentricity, and mental illness? Can you objectively tell me where? Can anyone?

Why do we need to draw a sharp line to know that some things fall upon one side and other things upon the other? If there is a difference between eccentricity and genuinely unhealthy behavior, then it doesn't really matter that it can be difficult to distinguish between the two from the outside. What we have is a spectrum, not a subjective free-for-all ungrounded in anything but the individual's own desires.

I do think there's a cultural component to what's considered a mental illness and what isn't, but I don't think that whether a specific mental state is good or bad is a matter of subjective preference. I've had issues with anxiety in the past, and that's not something that you can subjectively declare good just because you feel like it.

One step at a time, friend -- you haven't even defined "normal" yet, and you're already looking to enforce it. Remember some other words of wisdom from Morticia Addams: "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc"

You think that we should instead encourage anorexics to starve themselves to death? That doing otherwise is enforcing our preferences upon these people who have different but equally valid systems of valuation? I'd consider taking stuff like this seriously a matter of civic responsibility, not enforcement of an arbitrary standard of normality.

I agree -- there is a problem. Now you're the one talking about an extreme circumstance -- in the opposite direction; a case where the vast majority would agree that death is not better.

But majority =/= objectivity. There is a line somewhere between "I'm depressed because my girlfriend left me" and "I'm trapped on the observation deck of the WTC... where exactly that line is, however, is subjective.

If there's a line, no matter how hard it is to figure out here it is, then we're dealing in objective, not subjective differences. If everything is subjective, there is no line at all. Just an illusion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not in the same way, no. If I think something is objectively problematic, then I don't think that I'm merely imposing my subjective view on someone else.

No -- by labeling it "objective," you're attempting to impose your subjective view on everyone else.

It's not just a matter of my will against theirs--I actually think there is something wrong with what they are doing that can and should be corrected.

Read that bolded part again a few more times... it kind of shoots down any claims of objectivity, doesn't it?

How problems ought to be addressed is a separate question, but I'm comfortable saying that the oppression of women historically has been a societal evil that needed and still needs to be fixed.

As am I -- as is (one would hope) a very high majority of the human population.

But once again, majority =/= objectivity.

I do not know how I could care about women's rights while simultaneously holding them to be nothing more than a cultural preference.

That's a limitation you've put on yourself, and I can't help you with that.

I, for example, know that my particular culture puts a high value on women's rights (or at least gives a fair amount of lip service to the idea) that other cultures do not. Being a product of my culture, I, of course, have been raised and conditioned since near birth to believe that my views are right, and the others are wrong.

Had I been raised in another culture, in another time and place, the roles would be effectively reversed. I would laugh at other cultures for placing too much emphasis on women's rights...

Come to think of it, I don't have to look too far within my own American culture, do I? Not everyone is a fan of the #metoo movement, for example...

There's a very big difference between thinking that competing ideologies can be adjudicated, and thinking that they can't and then trying anyway.

And what power do I have to adjudicate an ideology?

My best guess is that the external world exists. My best guess is that science produces reasonably accurate models of reality. Perhaps we are defining "objectivity" differently? I don't believe in certainty. What effect does this have upon realism about the external world, science, or values? It disqualifies naive approaches, but it certainly doesn't destroy anything.

It would appear that we are defining "objective" differently. I'm going with "a universal standard which is unquestionably accurate."

Is there an objective morality or standard of values? hard to say. In the realm of facts, I would say that some things are certainly true. 2+2=4, Kevin Bacon appeared in the movie Footloose (the original, not the remake), and the capital of New Jersey is Trenton.

As Daniel Patrick Moynahan once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

Why do we need to draw a sharp line to know that some things fall upon one side and other things upon the other?

A blurry line, if you prefer -- but a line nonetheless.

If there is a difference between eccentricity and genuinely unhealthy behavior, then it doesn't really matter that it can be difficult to distinguish between the two from the outside.

Well, there is, which means it doesn't. Joshua Norton may very well have been a certifiable crackpot, but there wasn't anything unhealthy about it. If anything, going bonkers (if that's indeed what happened to him) was probably the best thing to ever happen to him.

What we have is a spectrum, not a subjective free-for-all ungrounded in anything but the individual's own desires.

We do? And who decides who fits where on the spectrum? Should Emperor Norton, for example, have been allowed to continue with his eccentircities, or tossed into a padded cell?

I do think there's a cultural component to what's considered a mental illness and what isn't, but I don't think that whether a specific mental state is good or bad is a matter of subjective preference. I've had issues with anxiety in the past, and that's not something that you can subjectively declare good just because you feel like it.

I'm sure 99.9% of people would agree with you -- but once again, majority =/= objectivity.

You think that we should instead encourage anorexics to starve themselves to death?

Not sure where you're getting that from.

That doing otherwise is enforcing our preferences upon these people who have different but equally valid systems of valuation?

I already told you my criteria for intervention -- allow me to spell it out yet again:

1. I have to believe that the person's actions are in some way injurious to themselves or others
2. I have to have a reason to care about their well-being.

I'd consider taking stuff like this seriously a matter of civic responsibility, not enforcement of an arbitrary standard of normality.

WHich is, and ever shall remain your opinion which you are entitled to... but there's that spectrum of yours -- where does "crash diet" end and "anorexia"
begin? Is there an objective standard to measure something like that?

If there's a line, no matter how hard it is to figure out here it is, then we're dealing in objective, not subjective differences. If everything is subjective, there is no line at all. Just an illusion.

And perhaps that's exactly what we're dealing with -- the illusion of a line. You think it's over here; I think it's over there. Which of us is correct?

Maybe, just maybe, that's all "culture," "society," or even "civilization" really is -- a mutually agreed-upon collection of illusory lines.

 

[Silmarien]

No -- by labeling it "objective," you're attempting to impose your subjective view on everyone else.

There's a difference between subjective views and potential objective truths underlying them. I subjectively view the theory of gravity as true, but this doesn't make gravity itself subjective (though our scientific theories are also only approximations). I'm pretty comfortable imposing my subjective view that genocide is objectively wrong on other people--I don't see any grey area or legitimate counterarguments in a case like this. I have more concerns about those who refuse to impose views about such issues on other people.

Read that bolded part again a few more times... it kind of shoots down any claims of objectivity, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Why would it? Does the external world only exist subjectively simply because we merely think that it has an existence independently of us? Rejecting language of certainty does not commit anyone to solipsism.

I, for example, know that my particular culture puts a high value on women's rights (or at least gives a fair amount of lip service to the idea) that other cultures do not. Being a product of my culture, I, of course, have been raised and conditioned since near birth to believe that my views are right, and the others are wrong.

Had I been raised in another culture, in another time and place, the roles would be effectively reversed. I would laugh at other cultures for placing too much emphasis on women's rights...

Then why do you hold views you do not think are right? Why not admit to nihilism outright instead of pretending that morals subjectively matter? And on the other hand, why give up and assume that everything is merely a matter of cultural prejudices instead of trying to figure out whether there is something universal going on beneath the surface?

Is there an objective morality or standard of values? hard to say. In the realm of facts, I would say that some things are certainly true. 2+2=4, Kevin Bacon appeared in the movie Footloose (the original, not the remake), and the capital of New Jersey is Trenton.

You should speak to some of the mathematical nihilists, then. They would deny that 2+2=4 is certainly true. As for the capital of New Jersey being Trenton, that seems more like an intersubjective matter of convention than an actual objective fact. What is a capital, what is a city, what is a state? I could deny that New Jersey as a concept has any mind-independent reality also. If we all subjectively decide that its capital is actually Hoboken, then it'll become Hoboken. This is much more purely subjective than morality seems to be.

Well, there is, which means it doesn't. Joshua Norton may very well have been a certifiable crackpot, but there wasn't anything unhealthy about it. If anything, going bonkers (if that's indeed what happened to him) was probably the best thing to ever happen to him.

Then we seem to agree that there is an objective fact of the matter about what is healthy and what is not, and Joshua Norton may not fit under the "unhealthy" label. I would make no claim that there was nothing unhealthy about his behavior--nobody could know that except himself. My only point would be that neither he nor anyone else gets to subjectively decide what is or isn't healthy.

We do? And who decides who fits where on the spectrum? Should Emperor Norton, for example, have been allowed to continue with his eccentircities, or tossed into a padded cell?

Why would we need to decide who fits where on a spectrum simply to recognize that there is a spectrum? Where is this dichotomy between subjectivist free-for-all and tossing people into padded cells coming from? Do relativists have this strange impression that they need to do away with all objective standards to prevent abuses? Because that doesn't really follow.

Not sure where you're getting that from.

From you. You implied we shouldn't enforce our view that people shouldn't be starving themselves to death on others.

I already told you my criteria for intervention -- allow me to spell it out yet again:

1. I have to believe that the person's actions are in some way injurious to themselves or others
2. I have to have a reason to care about their well-being.

Your criteria do not erase the problem of enforcing our preferences on people who have different but equally valid systems of valuation. It actually reinforces it, since we have not been able to establish a definition for "injurious to themselves or others."

Unless we think we can actually establish a genuine theory of wellbeing that accurately describes reality, which is what I've been trying to do all along.

WHich is, and ever shall remain your opinion which you are entitled to... but there's that spectrum of yours -- where does "crash diet" end and "anorexia"
begin? Is there an objective standard to measure something like that?

Why do you need to clearly differentiate between the two for a clear case of anorexia to be objectively unhealthy? I do not have a problem with shades of grey, but subjectivists insist that these greys are unanchored to reality. If there can be states that are objectively unhealthy, as anorexia nervosa seems to be, then a strong theory of subjectivism is in trouble.

And perhaps that's exactly what we're dealing with -- the illusion of a line. You think it's over here; I think it's over there. Which of us is correct?

Maybe, just maybe, that's all "culture," "society," or even "civilization" really is -- a mutually agreed-upon collection of illusory lines.

Is mental illness an illusion? Is there no genuine difference between health and sickness? If this is your conclusion, it seems to be describing an alternate universe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There's a difference between subjective views and potential objective truths underlying them. I subjectively view the theory of gravity as true, but this doesn't make gravity itself subjective (though our scientific theories are also only approximations). I'm pretty comfortable imposing my subjective view that genocide is objectively wrong on other people--I don't see any grey area or legitimate counterarguments in a case like this. I have more concerns about those who refuse to impose views about such issues on other people.

You should probably read the Old Testament...

Then why do you hold views you do not think are right?

Who said I do?

Why not admit to nihilism outright instead of pretending that morals subjectively matter?

Because they do matter -- to me.

And on the other hand, why give up and assume that everything is merely a matter of cultural prejudices instead of trying to figure out whether there is something universal going on beneath the surface?

Why do you assume I haven't already done this?

You should speak to some of the mathematical nihilists, then. They would deny that 2+2=4 is certainly true.

I really shouldn't -- they don't sound particularly interesting.

As for the capital of New Jersey being Trenton, that seems more like an intersubjective matter of convention than an actual objective fact. What is a capital, what is a city, what is a state? I could deny that New Jersey as a concept has any mind-independent reality also. If we all subjectively decide that its capital is actually Hoboken, then it'll become Hoboken. This is much more purely subjective than morality seems to be.

Sorry -- sophistry bores me.

Then we seem to agree that there is an objective fact of the matter about what is healthy and what is not, and Joshua Norton may not fit under the "unhealthy" label.

We agree? Great! Considering this is the first time you've mentioned him.

I would make no claim that there was nothing unhealthy about his behavior--nobody could know that except himself. My only point would be that neither he nor anyone else gets to subjectively decide what is or isn't healthy.

True -- all any of us would have to go on would be our own subjective observations.

Better than nothing -- yes or no?

Why would we need to decide who fits where on a spectrum simply to recognize that there is a spectrum?

What would be the point of the spectrum?

Where is this dichotomy between subjectivist free-for-all and tossing people into padded cells coming from? Do relativists have this strange impression that they need to do away with all objective standards to prevent abuses? Because that doesn't really follow.

Then you probably shouldn't be saying it.

From you. You implied we shouldn't enforce our view that people shouldn't be starving themselves to death on others.

Are they starving themselves to death?

Your criteria do not erase the problem of enforcing our preferences on people who have different but equally valid systems of valuation. It actually reinforces it, since we have not been able to establish a definition for "injurious to themselves or others."

Let me guess... you are able to do this. Do tell...

Unless we think we can actually establish a genuine theory of wellbeing that accurately describes reality, which is what I've been trying to do all along.

Fine, let's hear it.

Why do you need to clearly differentiate between the two for a clear case of anorexia to be objectively unhealthy?

Because not every case is clear. Some are clearer than others.

I do not have a problem with shades of grey, but subjectivists insist that these greys are unanchored to reality. If there can be states that are objectively unhealthy, as anorexia nervosa seems to be, then a strong theory of subjectivism is in trouble.

Then you should probably go talk to them.

Is mental illness an illusion? Is there no genuine difference between health and sickness? If this is your conclusion, it seems to be describing an alternate universe.

Good thing it's not, then -- but attempting to explain it is only leading us around the same tired old circles.

 

[Silmarien]

You should probably read the Old Testament...

Why? "God told me to do it" is not a legitimate counterargument.

Because they do matter -- to me.

Why do they matter to you? Honestly, I really don't understand it. Why would you cling to a belief system you think is false? Nihilism makes perfect sense to me, but this in-between position just seems confused.

True -- all any of us would have to go on would be our own subjective observations.

Better than nothing -- yes or no?

Not if we don't think they match up to reality in any real way. I certainly wouldn't consider solipsism better than nothing.

What would be the point of the spectrum?

What is the point of the Andromeda Galaxy?

I'm not trying to put together one perfect ethical system for everyone to follow; I don't think that's humanly possible. I just toy with the question of whether value itself is an intrinsic aspect of the natural world. This is why the question of sickness and health is so interesting to me--they don't really seem like a matter of subjective convention.

Then you probably shouldn't be saying it.

I've never said that you have to do away with all objective standards to prevent abuses. Quite the opposite.

Are they starving themselves to death?

Without treatment (which is a form of enforcement), the death rate is 20%, so yes. They are.

Fine, let's hear it.

I agree with what a lot of what Eudaimonist said a couple pages ago. Wellbeing is an inherently teleological concept, and as soon as you start thinking in terms of natural teleology and things having ends, morality makes sense again. As do values in general and perhaps the existence of something as hard to objectively describe as pain. The work of someone like Philippa Foot intrigues me.

Cutting off the subjective from the objective is a very Cartesian move. I don't know how anyone can do it without being a dualist about mind and matter.

Because not every case is clear. Some are clearer than others.

It's the existence of the clear cases that is hard for you if you want to say that everything is subjective.

Good thing it's not, then -- but attempting to explain it is only leading us around the same tired old circles.

You think there's an objective difference between health and sickness? If that's the case, we may just be going around in circles because you can't stand the word "objective" and I can't stand the word "subjective." Or because you're focused on epistemology (or ethics) and I'm looking at metaethics.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why? "God told me to do it" is not a legitimate counterargument.

Pity... it's a pretty common one here on CF.

Why do they matter to you? Honestly, I really don't understand it.

Because I choose to let them matter.

Why would you cling to a belief system you think is false?

You keep saying that; it hasn't gotten any more true since the last time.

Nihilism makes perfect sense to me, but this in-between position just seems confused.

So embrace Nihilism... I won't stop you.

Not if we don't think they match up to reality in any real way. I certainly wouldn't consider solipsism better than nothing.

And how do we know reality beyond the evidence provided by our own observations?

What is the point of the Andromeda Galaxy?

I've observed the Andromeda Galaxy. It exists. Where's your spectrum?

I'm not trying to put together one perfect ethical system for everyone to follow; I don't think that's humanly possible. I just toy with the question of whether value itself is an intrinsic aspect of the natural world.

If it were, wouldn't we all have come to the conclusion that the same things have value?

This is why the question of sickness and health is so interesting to me--they don't really seem like a matter of subjective convention.

And there's a point where we all would agree... but where is that point?

I've never said that you have to do away with all objective standards to prevent abuses. Quite the opposite.

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing againt.

Without treatment (which is a form of enforcement), the death rate is 20%, so yes. They are.

It's not the treatment I'm talking about, it's the diagnosis... when does one determine that it is, in fact, Anorexia?

 

[Silmarien]

Pity... it's a pretty common one here on CF.

The argument I usually see is that genocide is immoral but that God is not bound by morality and whatever he directly commands supercedes moral obligations. Which is not really an argument for the morality of genocide, per se, but just pushes God outside of the realm of moral actors. I think this approach collides spectacularly with the Euthyphro Dilemma and kind of falls apart, so I don't really consider it a viable model.

Either that or the argument is that what happened in the Old Testament wasn't a genocide in the modern sense of the word. Or that using exaggerated language of war was a cultural thing, and this stuff should be viewed symbolically. I'm not sure that works, but I do think we need to keep ancient literary devices in mind when looking at 2000+ year old texts.

You keep saying that; it hasn't gotten any more true since the last time.

You're welcome to tell me why it isn't.

And how do we know reality beyond the evidence provided by our own observations?

How do we know reality even by the evidence provided by our own observations? All we have direct access to is our own nervous systems. Strict empiricism does seem to be a one-way road to solipsism.

I've observed the Andromeda Galaxy. It exists. Where's your spectrum?

The point of the Andromeda Galaxy is that you've observed it? Again, unless you think there's no difference between health and illness except it being a matter of convention, my spectrum seems to exist as well. If you take objective to mean physically existent objects that seem to be detectable by empirical observation, then we're using the word in different ways. I am not a physicalist.

If it were, wouldn't we all have come to the conclusion that the same things have value?

We certainly seem to have with things like pain and pleasure. Would they even make sense as biological mechanisms if living things were not "programmed" to avoid the bad and seek out the good? How can this be something we made up?

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing againt.

Subjectivism.

It's not the treatment I'm talking about, it's the diagnosis... when does one determine that it is, in fact, Anorexia?

Presumably when enough symptoms can be ticked off. I don't see why this is relevant, though, unless you're arguing that blurry lines mean that genuine anorexics are the equivalent of perfectly healthy individuals who are simply operating differently. I do not think anyone who has recovered from anorexia (or alcoholism, or anything else) would agree with you.