What does it mean that something is right or wrong?

[superwolf]

If those who say that ethics is subjective mean by this that when
I say that cruelty to animals is wrong I am really only
saying that I disapprove of cruelty to animals, they are faced
with an aggravated form of one of the difficulties of relativism:
the inability to account for ethical disagreement. What was true
for the relativist of disagreement between people from different
societies is for the subjectivist true of disagreement between any
two people. I say cruelty to animals is wrong: someone else
says it is not wrong. If this means that I disapprove of cruelty
to animals and someone else does not, both statements may be
true and so there is nothing to argue about, and the whole field of
ethics is dead, because there is no room for reason or argument.

So what does it mean that something is right or wrong?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If both persons agree that ethics/morals are subjective then there is room to persuade. I also find that discussion/argument is often more a means of exploring and refining one's own beliefs than for the purpose of persuasion.

 

[NeoDevin]

The purpose of discussion and argument is, obviously, to force my morals on all of you!

 

[apeiron]

Are you not forgetting that "cruelty to animals" is a particular truth, and would have to be seen to follow from some more general truth?

So the discussants would have to step back to see if they arguing for different local outcomes based on similar global assumptions. Or if they indeed hold to different general truths too. Which is usually where you would expect one to be exposed as illogical, not following some reasoned path.

 

[Huckleberry]

If those who say that ethics is subjective mean by this that when
I say that cruelty to animals is wrong I am really only
saying that I disapprove of cruelty to animals, they are faced
with an aggravated form of one of the difficulties of relativism:
the inability to account for ethical disagreement. What was true
for the relativist of disagreement between people from different
societies is for the subjectivist true of disagreement between any
two people. I say cruelty to animals is wrong: someone else
says it is not wrong. If this means that I disapprove of cruelty
to animals and someone else does not, both statements may be
true and so there is nothing to argue about, and the whole field of
ethics is dead, because there is no room for reason or argument.

So what does it mean that something is right or wrong?

It's an exchange of viewpoints for each to consider.

The way you phrased your thoughts makes me think you may be interested in understanding a zen perspective. This is a small piece from the Wiki article on zen. The field of ethics isn't necessarily dead. It just becomes internalized, and requires a different philosophy to understand this particular viewpoint.

In distinction to many other Buddhist sects, Zen de-emphasizes reliance on religious texts and verbal discourse on metaphysical questions. Zen holds that these things lead the practitioner to seek external answers, rather than searching within themselves for the direct intuitive apperception of Buddha-nature. This search within goes under various terms such as “introspection,” “a backward step,” “turning-about,” or “turning the eye inward.”

In this sense, Zen, as a means to deepen the practice and in contrast to many other religions, could be seen as fiercely anti-philosophical, iconoclastic, anti-prescriptive and anti-theoretical. The importance of Zen's non-reliance on written words is often misunderstood as being against the use of words. However, Zen is deeply rooted in both the scriptural teachings of the Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama and in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought and philosophy

 

[Red Fox]

Its all about effect. If abusing animals has an over all detrimental effect on a given group of people for whatever reason, than yes it is wrong. If it has a positive effect (for example some odd or rediculous scenario in which it is the only way to achieve some necessary goal) than it may not be wrong, however there may be other methods of achieving the same effect that do not involve harming an animal, something that in itself could have its own detrimental side effects.

 

[a4mula]

0 and 1.

Unfortunately when it comes to human interaction both of those concepts cease to exist. There are no absolutes. It's this very reason why we develop values, morals, ethics, and law. We make agreements amongst ourselves (which are ever changing and different depending on where you go) on how to judge actions. Does that make it right or wrong? Of course not, it just makes it universally (locally! lol) agreeable.

 

[Red Fox]

0 and 1.

Unfortunately when it comes to human interaction both of those concepts cease to exist. There are no absolutes. It's this very reason why we develop values, morals, ethics, and law. We make agreements amongst ourselves (which are ever changing and different depending on where you go) on how to judge actions. Does that make it right or wrong? Of course not, it just makes it universally (locally! lol) agreeable.

Agreed. As i meant to imply with my previous post, this concept of right and wrong as absolutes is just wrong.

 

[Moridin]

0 and 1.

Unfortunately when it comes to human interaction both of those concepts cease to exist. There are no absolutes. It's this very reason why we develop values, morals, ethics, and law. We make agreements amongst ourselves (which are ever changing and different depending on where you go) on how to judge actions. Does that make it right or wrong? Of course not, it just makes it universally (locally! lol) agreeable.

By what (absolute) standard do you determine that no absolute standards exist?

The moral relativist/nihilist is immediately faced with several unsolvable problems, such as since the Nazi culture thought Hitler and the Holocaust was morally virtuous, it is wrong to say that the Holocaust was evil or do object to genocide or the fact that you are implicitly positing an objective standard of behavior (you ought to think moral relativism/nihilism is valid by the standard of, say, reason) at the same time as explicitly rejecting the existence of any objective standard of behavior (stolen concept fallacy) and so on.

 

[Moridin]

Agreed. As i meant to imply with my previous post, this concept of right and wrong as absolutes is just wrong.

Do you honestly don't see the contradiction here?

 

[madness]

The holocaust was wrong from our point of view, but it was not wrong from the nazi point of view. This is actually an argument for relativism rather than against it - if there were absolute morals then the nazis wouldn't have believed that what they were doing was right. What possible absolute moral laws would there be, and where would they come from? I don't think the people in this thread are claiming that there can't be an absolute standard of reason, just there there aren't God given moral laws.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By what (absolute) standard do you determine that no absolute standards exist?

The moral relativist/nihilist is immediately faced with several unsolvable problems, such as since the Nazi culture thought Hitler and the Holocaust was morally virtuous, it is wrong to say that the Holocaust was evil or do object to genocide or the fact that you are implicitly positing an objective standard of behavior (you ought to think moral relativism/nihilism is valid by the standard of, say, reason) at the same time as explicitly rejecting the existence of any objective standard of behavior (stolen concept fallacy) and so on.

Moral relativism and nihilism are two different things though they both agree to disagree with moral absolutism.
The nihilist would not believe that the Nazis were virtuous because they themselves believed that they were virtuous. The nihilist believes that no one is virtuous.
The relativist believes that the Nazis may have held to some standard of morality of their own. Nothing in moral relativism says that standard must be accepted, which touches on the last bit of your post.
Neither philosophy is proscriptive in any sense, they only offer a perspective through which to look at morals. There is no objective standard of behavior implied. In the case of the moral relativist there is often the fallascious argument made that because the relativist believes that others possesses their own moral standard and the relativist recognizes differing moral standards as valid that the relativist must abide and accept those standards. But obviously, even by that argument, taken to its full conclusion the relativist's own moral standard is just as valid and they have just as much right to act upon it.

The holocaust was wrong from our point of view, but it was not wrong from the nazi point of view. This is actually an argument for relativism rather than against it - if there were absolute morals then the nazis wouldn't have believed that what they were doing was right. What possible absolute moral laws would there be, and where would they come from? I don't think the people in this thread are claiming that there can't be an absolute standard of reason, just there there aren't God given moral laws.

Just because there may exist an absolute standard of moral behavior does not mean that all persons are privvy to it or choose to follow it even if they are. That is the eternal struggle of the moral absolutist; they and their like minded fellows are the only ones who know what is right.

 

[Red Fox]

Do you honestly don't see the contradiction here?

-_-

It is wrong to write that I was wrong for writing that the concepts of right and wrong are just plain wrong. When I write right and wrong are just plain wrong, the first "wrong", that is the wrong on the left, and the second "wrong", that is the wrong on the right, have two separate meanings. There is no contradiction, just word play.

So yes, I do don't see the contradiction here.

 

[drankin]

I believe there is a definite right and a definite wrong. And it means what I decide it to mean. And I'm 100% right about all of my decisions. If you don't believe me, just ask me.

 

[Moridin]

Neither philosophy is proscriptive in any sense, they only offer a perspective through which to look at morals.

So you agree that a moral relativist or nihilist cannot ever attempt to rationally persuade someone of the validity of their position without directly undermining their own position?

There is no objective standard of behavior implied.

There certainly is. If I enter a rational debate with the intent of making you adopt moral relativism, I am implicitly making the prescriptive statement that it is objectively true "you ought to adopt moral relativism because of reason x, y, z". So they are implicitly accepting the position which they claim to be refuting. Similarly, If I say that all language is meaningless or that you cannot read, I have also denied or presupposed a position that I am actively trying to prove/refute.

So the moment a relativist or nihilist tries to convince someone of the validity of their position, they must presuppose some form of moral realism.

 

[Moridin]

The holocaust was wrong from our point of view, but it was not wrong from the nazi point of view. This is actually an argument for relativism rather than against it - if there were absolute morals then the nazis wouldn't have believed that what they were doing was right. What possible absolute moral laws would there be, and where would they come from? I don't think the people in this thread are claiming that there can't be an absolute standard of reason, just there there aren't God given moral laws.

That position is contradiction. A statement cannot both be correct and incorrect at the same time, thus it is not possible that the Nazis could both be morally right and morally wrong. It is just as absurd as claiming that my cat is both a mammal and not a mammal. I am not a moral absolutism; I reject that position as equally absurd as moral relativism / moral nihilism. I subscribe to moral realism.

I can give you an example of a statement that is objectively morally true: "You ought to prefer truth over falsehood". It is impossible to deny this statement without a contradiction; if you ought to prefer falsehood over truth, then you obviously cannot prefer it, since it is true and you ought to prefer falsehood.

I can also make several objectively false moral claims, such as "all librarians ought to have their pay cut because all paper towels are pink elephants". All paper towels are not pink elephants and if they where, it is not at all clear why that should have any effect on librarians salary levels.

True moral statements are derived from reason and empiricism, nothing magical.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So you agree that a moral relativist or nihilist cannot ever attempt to rationally persuade someone of the validity of their position without directly undermining their own position?

There certainly is. If I enter a rational debate with the intent of making you adopt moral relativism, I am implicitly making the prescriptive statement that it is objectively true "you ought to adopt moral relativism because of reason x, y, z". So they are implicitly accepting the position which they claim to be refuting. Similarly, If I say that all language is meaningless or that you cannot read, I have also denied or presupposed a position that I am actively trying to prove/refute.

So the moment a relativist or nihilist tries to convince someone of the validity of their position, they must presuppose some form of moral realism.

Moral relativism and nihilism are both perspectives on the subject of morals, they do not advocate any preferred set of morals. They do not attempt to prove or refute any set of morals. Each, after their own fashion, simply refutes the idea that there are absolute or empiracally verifiable sets of morals. These are statements about morals not moral statements.

 

[Moridin]

Moral relativism and nihilism are both perspectives on the subject of morals, they do not advocate any preferred set of morals. They do not attempt to prove or refute any set of morals. Each, after their own fashion, simply refutes the idea that there are absolute or empiracally verifiable sets of morals. These are statements about morals not moral statements.

The moment you start advocating either in a rational debate, you are asserting prescriptive statements.

 

[madness]

There is no contradiction in moral relativism. What you said is X can't be morally wrong and morally right at the same time. You assume here that morality is absolute. X can be morally wrong and morally right in a relative sense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The moment you start advocating either in a rational debate, you are asserting prescriptive statements.

But are they morally prescriptive or intellectually prescriptive? As I pointed out they make statements about morals not moral statements. Do you not see the difference?

 

[davee123]

I think perhaps the point of Moral Relativism may be being missed-- as a moral relativist, I attempt to avoid judging the actions of others as "good" or "evil", but instead as "stuff I agree or disagree with".

As an example, take Osama Bin Laden. I disagree with his actions, and I'd do what I can to attempt to prevent him from taking those actions with which I disagree, largely because I disagree with them to an overwhelmingly large extent. However, I don't hold that he's an evil person. George Bush, on the other hand, believing in an absolute set of morals, holds that Bin Laden is necessarily evil.

Ultimately, morality is the groundwork for society. If you were living all by yourself with no other living organisms around, you wouldn't have a need for morality. But as soon as you get another living being, a need for morality becomes apparent, as your relationship with other beings acquires definition. Usually this results in a common set of morals by which everyone in the society generally agrees with. The less agreement there is with regard to common morality, the weaker that society becomes, and visa versa.

Hence, morality is a fundamental tool of society, and is conceived of in individual terms in conjunction with the surrounding society. They effectively act as "the law" without generally requiring to be written definitively. The details will differ between individuals within the same society to a small extent, and will likely differ more largely between different societies.

To ascribe universality to morality or ethics is simply silly. Relative morality, however unpopular, appears to be an accurate conception of how morality functions. It DOESN'T mean, however, that we ought to ignore the actions of those who are "evil", simply because they may be "good" by their own set of morals. It means that we must avoid justifying our actions by our own moral valuation.

DaveE

 

[superwolf]

Can one be utilitarian and moral relativist at the same time?

 

[superwolf]

To ascribe universality to morality or ethics is simply silly. Relative morality, however unpopular, appears to be an accurate conception of how morality functions. It DOESN'T mean, however, that we ought to ignore the actions of those who are "evil", simply because they may be "good" by their own set of morals.

It means that we don't have to, because morals are relative after all. It means that I don't have to help someone in jeopardy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Can one be utilitarian and moral relativist at the same time?

From wiki..

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

As far as I can tell the basics of utilitarianism are compatible. The differences between the realism camp and relativism camp are not so great. The primary difference being that one sees the rule of measure as objective and the other subjective. Both would seem to agree that circumstances can alter the outcome of a moral proposition.

Edit: Your not unreasonable desire to believe in or discover moral truths seems to make you lean towards realism. Personally I prefer to remain agnostic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It means that we don't have to, because morals are relative after all. It means that I don't have to help someone in jeopardy.

Well I've only got to stay black and die. ;-p

Relativism only means there is no certainty of moral rightousness. That you only can do the best you can with what you've got.

 

[superwolf]

Depends on how you define "moral truth". People often say that if it's not carved in stone, it's not a truth. But nobody can honestly mean that as soon as you carve something in stone, then it's true! Still morality is objective, because we can SEE other beings suffer, and because suffering is bad, it's wrong to expose them to suffering.

 

[davee123]

Can one be utilitarian and moral relativist at the same time?

I suppose sort of. That is, you could define your own personal moral set as Utilitarian, without necessarily enforcing that definition of morality onto others.

It means that we don't have to, because morals are relative after all. It means that I don't have to help someone in jeopardy.

Damn straight! ... If that happens to be your own moral code. I'm not sure I know anyone whose personal moral code would allow them NOT to help someone in jeopardy (except in cases where the particular person was relevant). So realistically speaking, because moral codes are so similar between people, you probably DO have to help someone in jeopardy. But there's a slight chance that you're abnormally developed psychologically, and won't be evil for not having helped them.

DaveE

 

[superwolf]

I can also force it on others, without claiming that the values are universal?

 

[davee123]

I can also force it on others, without claiming that the values are universal?

Again, if your moral code allows it, yes. As I stated before, if you're significantly abnormally developed, your morality may dictate that it's ok. And as a moral relativist, I won't judge you as "evil" for doing so. ... But I just may decide to try and stop you, as would others.

Ultimately, I question whether individualistic moral codes like "it's good not to help people" and "it's good to see others suffer" are naturally selected to fail, so to speak. That is, the societies that might develop with such moral sets are likely to die out in favor of societies where moral codes encourage helping others. It's deeply ingrained into mammals, it seems, where other mammals often help each other, groom each other, care for their young, etc. So a certain portion may be tied to biology, who knows?

DaveE

 

[Shai-Hulud]

I don't really believe that ethics exist outside of society. I don't believe right and wrong/good and bad exist, for when humans cease to exist, who's to say that it's good or bad to beat your dog? Many believe in a higher being that creates these principles, but as that I do not believe in such higher beings, I do not personally believe in the substance of ethical systems. I think of it more in terms of flow patterns and variables. If beating one's dog has a more positive affect on society than a negative affect, than it is 'good', and if beating one's dog has a more negative than positive affect on society, than it is 'bad'. Say for example if beating a dog somehow is linked to the life of a child who will become the scientist who comes up with a cure for AIDS, and not beating the dog results in the death of this child, then beating the dog is certainly a 'good' thing, for it greatly would benefit society. Otherwise, it would probably just be a 'bad' thing, ending in nothing more than an injured and depressed dog.

 

[Moridin]

But are they morally prescriptive or intellectually prescriptive? As I pointed out they make statements about morals not moral statements. Do you not see the difference?

"Intellectually prescriptive" is still a form of prescriptive statement ie. morality. They are making morally prescriptive statements about how someone who values truth ought to relate to moral relativism.

If I assert that "proposition X is justified", I am really asserting that there exists objectively verifiable reasons why "proposition X is justified" ought to be considered valid. Thus any form of or attempt at rational argumentation presupposes moral realism (just as it presupposes the existence of truth, the meaningfulness of language etc.)

 

[Moridin]

I don't really believe that ethics exist outside of society.

Even if you are on a deserted island, you still have values and means of assessing reality in order to fulfill them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Even if you are on a deserted island, you still have values and means of assessing reality in order to fulfill them.

And that's why people tend to go a bit crazy when alone on a desert island, because all those values and instincts are based on people who aren't there.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"Intellectually prescriptive" is still a form of prescriptive statement ie. morality.

I believe you are commiting an error of basic logic and set theory. That while morally prescriptive statements may belong to the set of all prescriptive statements this does not mean all prescriptive statements are morally prescriptive.

Is the prescriptive statement "members of a set of entities Y which include the chracteristic X do not dictate that all members of the set Y possesses the characteristic X" a morally prescriptive statement?

 

[octelcogopod]

All value, including morals, exist only within an intersubjective and subjective state.
All humans learn that pain hurts, and this means no human can ever escape the intersubjective knowledge that hurting animals is negative for the animal.
If a human was completely oblivious to the fact that hurting animals hurts the animal, then there couldn't be applied a moral principle to this person.

But no such person exists, and even if you are sadist who enjoys others pain, you are still aware of the pain, and how that pain feels. (All humans have had pain at some point or another)
It is this awareness that is the basis of morals, and without it there can be no morals.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All value, including morals, exist only within an intersubjective and subjective state.
All humans learn that pain hurts, and this means no human can ever escape the intersubjective knowledge that hurting animals is negative for the animal.
If a human was completely oblivious to the fact that hurting animals hurts the animal, then there couldn't be applied a moral principle to this person.

But no such person exists, and even if you are sadist who enjoys others pain, you are still aware of the pain, and how that pain feels. (All humans have had pain at some point or another)
It is this awareness that is the basis of morals, and without it there can be no morals.

There are persons with psychosis who do not make the connection between their subjective experience and that of others, though they are generally considered exceptional cases.

 

[JoeDawg]

It is this awareness that is the basis of morals, and without it there can be no morals.

I think that's a bit oversimplified. Moral systems are not based solely on pain issues. They usually include 'punishments' which inflict pain. Morals are social rules, designed to give people an understanding about their place within a society. Moral rules often apply differently to different groups within societies, rather arbitrarily, and emphasize the importance or lack thereof of different types of pain and pleasure. The idea of sin can apply to any behavior, pain or no pain. That said, a person can also have there own personal moral code, outside of their societal structure, which has its basis entirely within one's personal identity, quite to the contrary of society.

 

[octelcogopod]

JayRoe yeah that's true, a sin can be anything that society deems a sin, but I still find that a basic awareness and value judgment of positive and negative is the reason why we create morals around things, but those values are all based around beliefs about things, which are subjective. But even so there is still an awareness of the logic and meaning behind situations and people, and this awareness is the basis of morality imo.

 

[Red Fox]

All value, including morals, exist only within an intersubjective and subjective state.
All humans learn that pain hurts, and this means no human can ever escape the intersubjective knowledge that hurting animals is negative for the animal.
If a human was completely oblivious to the fact that hurting animals hurts the animal, then there couldn't be applied a moral principle to this person.

But no such person exists, and even if you are sadist who enjoys others pain, you are still aware of the pain, and how that pain feels. (All humans have had pain at some point or another)
It is this awareness that is the basis of morals, and without it there can be no morals.

In that case, hurting animals is not wrong because it is wrong to cause suffering but because one knows about and can identify with that suffering. Also, many people do not hold animals on the same level as humans (not necessarily because they view humans as some supreme species, but because they themselves are humans and in their eyes humans needs wants etc. come before animals). I cannot see any real flaw in this, and I don't think that this view would necessarily mean that someone would not object to the unnecessary harm of animals.

 

[Moridin]

I believe you are commiting an error of basic logic and set theory. That while morally prescriptive statements may belong to the set of all prescriptive statements this does not mean all prescriptive statements are morally prescriptive.

Is the prescriptive statement "members of a set of entities Y which include the chracteristic X do not dictate that all members of the set Y possesses the characteristic X" a morally prescriptive statement?

That is not a prescriptive, but descriptive statement. But yes, all prescriptive statements are ultimately morally descriptive statements, since they prescribe an attitude to claims.

 

[The riddler]

This argument could litrally go on forever, because unlike other arguements on this forum there is no factual evidence behind Opinion's. The only thing that i think defines what is right and what is wrong is things like public opinion, natural opinion (by which i mean genetics) and the opinion of people around you, for example your parents.

The opinion of right and wrong is not universial, for all we know we may enconter an alien race that due to how its evolved may be what we consider very destructive and dominating, but again we may also encounter an alien race that is extremely peaceful.

Though right and wrong cannot be proved this is no reason not to argue over them, though it may seem pointless to argue over opinion i believe that we should find what opinions work best to suit mankinds nature as a hole.

 

[WaveJumper]

Though right and wrong cannot be proved this is no reason not to argue over them, though it may seem pointless to argue over opinion i believe that we should find what opinions work best to suit mankinds nature as a hole.

Sure, but why do certain opinions work best? What is the system that everything adheres to in this universe? What stipulates which opinions should work best? Randomness? Hmm, I don't think so. I would think that something vital is missing in our understanding of the fundamental essence of the universe.

 

[The riddler]

Sure, but why do certain opinions work best?

As i have mentioned before i think certain opinions work best only because of how we have been evolved or nutured to believe in them, but seeing how nuture can vary between different people i think it is best that opinions work on the overall nature of ourselves.
To understand what is best for us, we must first understand ourselves.

What is the system that everything adheres to in this universe? What stipulates which opinions should work best? Randomness? Hmm, I don't think so. I would think that something vital is missing in our understanding of the fundamental essence of the universe.

don't think that there is a single system that everything adheres to in this universe, but i do think that everything has its own different system that let's it react to different situations in whatever way it see's fit, these systems are either built over time (e.g. Evolution/genetics) or adjusted (e.g. Nuture), and the only thing i can say about the fundamental essence of the universe is that its probably extremely simple and right there in front of us.

 

[WaveJumper]

Sure, but why do certain opinions work best?

As i have mentioned before i think certain opinions work best only because of how we have been evolved or nutured to believe in them, but seeing how nuture can vary between different people i think it is best that opinions work on the overall nature of ourselves.
To understand what is best for us, we must first understand ourselves.

This doesn't explain why certain opinions describe better than others the reality we perceive. If we had been evolved in a different manner(whatever that means), would we have been perceiving a different universe, regulated by a different set of laws?

]What is the system that everything adheres to in this universe? What stipulates which opinions should work best? Randomness? Hmm, I don't think so. I would think that something vital is missing in our understanding of the fundamental essence of the universe.

don't think that there is a single system that everything adheres to in this universe

If there is no system that everything adheres to, how has the universe existed for 14 billion years then? If i give you a handful of sand, can you make a small-scale model of the universe that would last even for 2 seconds?

but i do think that everything has its own different system that let's it react to different situations in whatever way it see's fit

What exactly is "IT" in your above sentence? How could we characterise it?

these systems are either built over time (e.g. Evolution/genetics) or adjusted (e.g. Nuture), and the only thing i can say about the fundamental essence of the universe is that its probably extremely simple and right there in front of us.

I think what is extremely simple and primitive is our own understanding of what exactly is at play. We are still in our infancy development-wise and despite our spectacular progress all of our theories are still incomplete to various degrees and we most definitely haven't figured everything out yet. The only ones that seem to be certain they have figured everything appear to be either hardcore, die-hard atheists or religious fundamentalists. Intuitively, most of the time we are able to understand what is best for us(i.e. if it's right or wrong), but this is a skin-deep perspective. We are still lacking a deeper, fuller understanding of the system(some call it an underlying reality, accessible or not) that makes the emergence of the classical universe possible with all of its bells and whistles.