Bob Ross

A thing-in-itself is whatever external thing in reality impacted your senses in the first place, and of which excited your faculties of representation...

I thought it was a good exposition of some of Kant’s ideas :up: If there's something about it that you would like to discuss with me specifically, the...

Your recognition that space is required for outer sense because it must have the possibility of representing a multiplicity of external objects, where...

I am not sure there is much more I can say on this point other than reiterate: what you mean by ‘real’ here is just a vague notion of existence—i.e., ...

:smile: Could you elaborate on this? I didn’t follow this part. Mww, always feel free to chime in on these conversations if you have something to add ...

Alright @"Mww" and @"Wayfarer", your mysterious forces are beginning to sway me. In having to explain this to Philosophim, I am starting to appreciate...

:up:

I think the consistency of normal experience and our ability to compare to perceptive fabrications (e.g., hallucinations, dreams, etc.) are evidence t...

Just like the question “how far would you go to save an adult?”, it is so nuanced I am not sure where to begin on that one. Let me address the other t...

You should be able to answer a basic question like that. Let me try to ask it differently: 1. What do you believe a 'right' is? 2. Do you believe anyt...

Good question: no, I would not volunteer to save a random zygote nor a random adult by having them use my bodily resources to save their life; and I d...

But you are implying a zygote has some rights, but are not clarifying what they are; because you don't know....

You didn't answer my question Banno. Let me try again: DO YOU THINK that the zygote has a right to life? Any right to life at all? If so, then what do...

It is simple @"Banno": do you or do you not believe that a zygote has a right to life? Do they have that right?

At best, if I grant what you said here then, you are saying that the blastocyst has no right to life; which is the most basic right a human has :sad: ...

CC: @"RogueAI": I have been trying, from the start, to get @"Banno" to answer similar questions; but, unfortunately, they refuse to engage. The whole ...

I apologize: I was not intending to sidestep any of your response. If there's something I missed, then please feel free to bring it up. Likewise, I en...

Here's why I said it is question begging: you are saying that is it morally permissible to abort because it is obvious that the woman should be able t...

You are back to just begging the question. This has been by far the most unproductive conversation I have had in a while.

Do you know the difference between normative and applied ethics? I think that's the issue here. My starts with normative ethics, as it should, and the...

Definitely because my invisible friend said so, and nothing to do with my response. I knew you were going to that (: BRO….I don’t see how that is a si...

I appreciate the response, and I see that we need to address more the a priori vs. a posteriori distinction more in depth before we move on to that di...

I don't disagree that republics are the best political system we've got; I am saying that, ideally, allowing people to choose, per se, is not necessar...

Another way to put this, is that it is perfectly fine to intuit based off of evidence; but a pure intuition lacks all evidence, and is invalid. Pure i...

Intuitions are a part of ethics: they are not sufficient themselves, as pure intuitions, to justify or annul a position. You are begging the question,...

Your whole argument is that X is immoral because it seems immoral to you: is that actually how you are thinking about Mrs. Smith? I am evaluating whet...

What you are describing is a secular view, which removes ethics from politics, as a pragmatic means of allowing people to flourish the best; and I agr...

I skimmed through it, and none of it seemed to reference Kant: it was about, more broadly, how many philosophers have contended we should use the a pr...

Firstly, again, a mother should not be asking herself if she should abort because she doesn't think she can flourish with a baby in her life: that's n...

Traditionally, morality is about right and wrong behavior; and, subsequently, about goodness and badness. My point is that goodness and badness are no...

My answer is really simple, as I agree that one has to evaluate the moral theory through some standard beyond it: goodness. Goodness is not within the...

So, “neo-”Aristotelianism is not itself one specific view: it is just any view that is a modified version, a sublation, of Aristotelianism—it’s a “mod...

This is a joke...right? We derive conclusions and answers to questions. Yes, literally every study has fundamental questions it is trying to answer. P...

What?

Correct; and I would say, to keep things less confusing, they are a person because their nature marks them out as one (even if they never fully realiz...

All moral theories fundamentally begin with "what is actually good?" and then derive principle therefrom. There's nothing intuitional about it (at lea...

A means is anything which, at least in part, facilitates the end; and the end is the intended reason for committing the act. E.g., killing someone to ...

It is problematic because it is circular logic: you are saying that moral judgment X is wrong because moral judgment X seems wrong to you. This kind o...

The intuition that I have that it is wrong to never sacrifice an ant to save a person is insufficient to disprove the theory—that’s what you are missi...

It is a metaethical claim; and, I would like to point out, you still have not presented a normative ethical account of your position. Metaethically, I...

Sorry I didn't see this: I wasn't linked to it. Philosophim, I am not going to make your argument for you (: If there is something in that article tha...

Because I must, in order to be a morally good agent, respect a thing relative to its nature; and in order to respect a fellow will, like mine, I must ...

Moral theories are not analyzed based off of moral intuitions: moral intuitions are analyzed in terms of moral theories. Moral theories are evaluated ...

Sort of: not sure exactly what you are saying here. It is neo-aristotelian because I view personhood and rights as ground fundamentally in rational Te...

All you have offered is examples which presuppose your own ethical position without offering moral reasons for accepting your position. E.g.,: I say "...

I appreciate your elaboration on your thoughts, and I cannot possibly dissect all of it in one response; so I will address some key points that you ma...

Technically, neo-aristotelian. The part I was discussing was Aristotelian in nature; but you pointed out some other point that Aristotle made, assumin...

Yeah, I don't buy that (sorry Aristotle).

It is grounded in—i.e., make true in virtue of—something which is not empirical. The space which objects take up on your conscious experience is not e...

I think that evolution and biology are the groundings for Teleology: I don't think that there needs to be an agent that designed it for there to be de...