It’s like measuring cars based on speed, safety and comfort – different people have different priorities – and saying that “Cars should be measured by safety.” would be just as odd a statement.

Art _is_. If you choose to measure it at all then that’s your problem – telling me what I should be getting out of it strikes me as oppressive and, well, silly.

I totally disagree. Behaving as if there were a universal morality means (a) ignoring reality and (b) getting yourself into a position where you are unable to debate with people who differ from you, because it’s now not a difference of opinion, it’s their failure to recognise Truth. It’s dogmatism, which is something I despise.

It’s fine for me to say “I loathe the idea of living in a society where women do not have the vote, and I will do everything I can to prevent such a thing coming about” without having to resort to nonsense ideas such as absolute morality.

And without universal morality there’s no such as thing “ok” actions, so framign it that way literally makes no sense to me.

“8) The term ‘free will’ is literally meaningless, and the hoops physicists jump through in order to reconcile it with experimental and theoretical results are ridiculous.”

I would disagree on the first claim simply because, in my opinion, the meaning of “free will” has been set in stone (at least) since Kant: a free will is one whose actions/decisions are not the direct, irrevocable, and (perhaps most importantly) determinable result of natural laws.

I.e., a being with a free will is one who is able to make decisions and act on the world independently of the influence of stimuli from the world, who actually has the ability to choose between two (or more) possible actions–as opposed to the deterministic option where “choosing” is not an ability any being possesses and all actions by any being are predetermined by natural laws and the influence of the natural world upon said being.

I don’t mean to get into a discussion about the existence of free wills, but I do think that the claim that there isn’t any sort of (even relatively) codified or agreed upon meaning of “free will” is patently false.

I also think it’s interesting that you take issue with physicists of all people jumping through hoops to perpetuate the idea of a free will. Among all the people who have been arguing about the (non)existence of free will over the course of human history, physicists form a very, very tiny minority, I think. XD

“And as for your last point, I think it incumbent upon people to behave *as if* there were a universal morality, even though no such thing exists, otherwise one gets into it being OK to stop women voting if it’s part of your culture, and suchlike…”

In light of your comment about free will I have to wonder about your views on morality. How do you reconcile your repudiation of any idea of free will with the fact that you obviously believe actions have a moral character?

Obviously I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but i am genuinely curious.