Correct. I was contending with the prominent understanding of moral subjectivism—of course there may be nuanced versions. I would say, though, that th...
I think it may be better if you elaborated on which premise you disagree with, because this is false and I demonstrated it in the proof. “I believe th...
"I believe one ought not torture babies" is NOT a moral proposition: the moral proposition is that "one ought not torture babies". All you have noted ...
Truthity is whether or not something has truth, and not that it has truth. P1 is not the claim that beliefs cannot make something true or false (which...
The original American Dream was not about becoming rich: it was about manifest destiny, second chances, and acquiring sufficient wealth to provide and...
My biggest complaint, is that your argument doesn't actually attempt to demonstrate that atheism is illogical...even if I were to grant everything you...
I see. So all you are claiming is "informative" about this science of morality is IF one has goals aligned with it (viz., IF one finds it instrumental...
God has nothing to do with it: if one doesn't believe in any kind of free will, then the use of a concept such as responsibility is absurd and irratio...
That one is determined, does not entail that they have no free will: determinism does not preclude free will. However, if one does go the hard determi...
The problem is that, on the one hand, you are claiming that this "science of morality" does not inform us what we ought to do, and then, on the other,...
Please define what you mean by “morality”, because so far you are just using the term, which for you is distinct from ethics, without giving a clear d...
I appreciate the elaboration! I understand you separate ‘morality’ from ‘ethics’, but this is superficial and nonsensical. What you really conveyed in...
Absolutely! I appreciate you taking the time to respond (: :up: I do not recognize any valid difference between morality and ethics. Perhaps it would ...
“Philosophers” like Sam Harris are not engaging in ethics whatsoever in their suggested strategies of cooperation (e.g., “moral landscapes” as he puts...
No worries and sounds good! I don’t know what you mean by ‘argument’: it seems like you are just using it as a catch-all term for whatever a position ...
I just wanted to note something that I don't see getting addressed in here. That something does not have a cause is not itself a cause. You are saying...
I think we have exhausted our conversation. There's only one last question I have (that won't circle us back to our pre-existing disagreements): am I ...
Sorry, the forum did not notify me of the @s. I completely agree: I am not contending that we should praise or blame tornados for what they do, but, r...
I saw it, but it didn’t seem to address our issue (between us). Let me address some of it in ways that avoid reiteration to help further the conversat...
It looks like you may be new here: welcome to the forum, Jasonm! Unfortunately, you did not eliminate what you sought to: it is entirely coherent for ...
Let me put it more precisely, then: “the events which transpire directly due to a tornado are intrinsically bad”. Do you disagree with that statement,...
Firstly, you are absolutely right to point out that a tornado is not an agent, as an agent is self-caused, and that it isn’t acting (in the strict sen...
I see what you mean, and now recognize that I need to be more clear with my terminology. To answer your question outright: I accept the corollary as v...
The way I see it, either 'natural evil' is a matter of amoral consideration and is, thusly, not evil (viz., it is really 'natural badness'); or 'natur...
By ‘amoral agent’, I was referring to an agent that is not capable of moral decision making (viz., not capable of being culpable for their actions); a...
Fair enough: I will make my response more abrupt to make it less strainful (on the both of us). With respect to your use of ‘moral agent’, the issue w...
Hello Chet and Kizzy, Although your intentions may be good, your responses are elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstant...
We may be at an impasse, so please feel free, if you see nothing new or noteworthy to add to my response here, to just have us agree to disagree. That...
Another way of thinking about it, that just crossed my mind, is that: If natural evil is not moral evil, then some evil is not immoral. My interpretat...
Which one is that you mean to convey? These are incoherent taken together. Either a ‘moral agent’ is an agent capable of moral scrutiny (of moral acts...
I would like to disclaim that, as always, I appreciate your feedback and critiques! It is rare on this forum to find a person that is willingly think ...
Agreed. So: For example, morality and culpability go hand in hand. All things relevant to culpability rely on morality, and therefore to talk about so...
No. By “structure of a syllogism is objective”, you are referring to the form of the syllogism being valid (i.e., that it is logically consistent, has...
How is this not incoherent? You first say there exists a moral talk that is not culpability talk, and then say that all moral realities are culpabilit...
I would also like to mention that even with the idea of 'objectivity' requiring publicity of the empirical content, it is still possible to analyze wh...
I think your use of the terms is incoherent with your definitions. If: Then ‘objectivity’ is fundamentally about anything which is not relative to sub...
Fair enough. I think your idea of “invincible negligence” clarified quite a bit of my contentions; and I am inclined to agree with you. I think I unde...
I commend you for the thoughtfulness which is exemplified in your OP, as it is well-written, succinct, and substantive. By-at-large, I agree with your...
"I" references "self", which makes no sense if there isn't "not self". You cannot identify what is you and what is not, if there isn't anything beside...
I think I have identified one of the subtle issues with my theory, that may be causing you trouble (understanding it). That a thing demands or insists...
That's fine and fair. An idiom, through repetition, can be ascertained by what it conveys and not the origin of how it came about to mean it. However,...
You just unknowingly contradicted yourself. "Over the boundary" is the idea that there are two things in space (at least conceptually) and one is beyo...
I always appreciate your thoughts! Here's where I get a bit confused with Aristotle, because I agree that eudaimonia is the highest good because of it...
I guess I am not fully fathoming what you mean by subjective vs. objective definitions and arguments. I thought you were saying that 'subjective' refe...
Comments