Bob Ross

Semantics is about meaning, which is about how and what words relate to what underlying content; and has nothing to do with that underlying content it...

By incoherence, I mean the strong opposition of two things. That I have both long and short hair, right now, seems very incoherent given the standard ...

Absolutely no worries! I was wondering… (; So, the two major problems I have are: 1. I don’t see why it is internally incoherent for moral realists pe...

Semantics is about words—i.e., what is the best or chosen word to describe something—and not the what those words reference themselves (i.e., their un...

Correct. I wouldn’t say that metaphysical impossible is derived solely from the semantics of M but, rather, the underlying meaning associated with tho...

Good OP. Personally, I don't see why we should accept that space and time, or space/time fabric, is a substance--as they seem, to me, to be merely the...

I think I understand now, the ‘desire’ is just the want for something; whereas the ‘accomplishment’ is the happiness it may bring us upon achieving it...

I just mean historical, pyschological, and physiological analysis of human's seems to point to a 'boiler plate' human, although we don't have complete...

Actual, or also called physical, possibility is a mode of thought in modality whereof something is possible iff it does not violate the laws or curren...

Sort of. I wouldn't say that the argument is that we should do whatever keeps us at balance to survive, but, rather, align ourselves with our nature a...

What is the question?

Firstly, it is incredibly important to define what one means by freedom in philosophy of free will: I suspect this definition of 'freedom' is toto gen...

Metaphysical impossibility is any proposition which violates the presupposed metaphysical theory, no different than how actual/physical possibility is...

I just meant the function in terms of a perfectly healthy organism relative to its species, not that there is an author to those functions. We say "a ...

Your thoughts are always welcome, Mww :heart: My only worry here is that it isn’t the necessarily the case that a person’s absolute end is their own h...

Here's a new argument I was thinking of: P1: One should abide by the intended function(s) of their organism. P2: It is an intended function of the hum...

Why is it incoherent? I think we both agree it isn’t internally incoherent, but why is it externally incoherent? Are you just saying it is incoherent ...

Agreed. What’s really wrong with this, in principle, though? It doesn’t even seem incoherent to me. This is too vague. For example, if you are a moral...

No, there aren’t any. So, the idea is that when one treats an end, E, as solely a means, they thereby implicitly concede the contradiction that “E is ...

A mind is an emergent process of a brain or a soul (take our pic) which is capable of having desires, cognizing, and having a conscious experience or ...

I think we both agree now that there is no incoherence or contradiction with positing A, so let me move on. We need to revisit metaethics, because I c...

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to go for, which is, if I am not mistaken, that morality itself contains a ‘moral’ judgment t...

Let’s skip this for now. We are definitely getting closer! (: Thank you for the exposition of your logic for the argument, because I see exactly where...

These two claims are not equivalent. The hypothetical in the top quote is just using ‘must’ in a non-normative ‘moral’ sense to indicate that if there...

This is still incorrect: the claim is that if there is a reason that everything should not exist, then there is a reason that everything should not ex...

You too! I am not sure how else to explain it. They are categorically different: are you asking why a means can’t ever be an end in a different contex...

There aren’t any: my point is just that I am predicating that only minds are ends-in-themselves and not equivocating them. Agreed. Ethics is a science...

I don’t see how this would be the case, as your argument for ‘there should be something’ (which we are currently discussing) is not more fundamental t...

Two things: 1. It is required to note that minds are ends in themselves because the identity of ‘an absolute end’ does not entail itself that those ar...

The problem I see is that we are talking about reasons for things existing, and so if we posit that reasons themselves are an infinite series, then it...

My point is that your moral judgments are subjective if they are true relative to the subjective moral judgment that one ought to be rational. But, th...

I think this is just the fallacy of the heap. I understand that most people’s knee-jerk reaction is to say “humans have more value!”; but this simply ...

I apologize: I mis-re-read it: nevermind! I re-read it again and, yes, this is purporting that a first cause (an ‘alpha) is logically necessary, since...

I understand, but this has nothing to do with what the nature of objective moral judgments are, which what was pertinent to our discussion of the whet...

@"Philosophim" I would like to just make a suggestion, reading through this OP for the second time I realized you don't seem to be actually claiming a...

I will do my best! The problem is that you haven’t given any vocabulary for this, because you haven’t engaged your theory in anything related to the n...

Hello Mww! Just FYI, I modified the OP, so it has changed quite a bit (; Interesting, I will have to give it a read; but I would like to clarify that ...

I just updated the OP so that it is clearer what is being argued: my answer is yes, it is justified because, long story short, it is a moral antinomy ...

I would say it is the same. This is does not follow from what was said above, and simply begs the question. Ok, either you must argue that the disjunc...

Fair enough!

Sorry for the belated response! If morality is objective, then moral judgments express something objective. If they express something objective, then ...

It is because he considers only rational agents to have the sufficient freedom to obey their own representational laws as opposed to the laws of natur...

@"Vera Mont" Perhaps I misread it. True. I concede that point.

It is because the very nature of objective morality contradicts your position, unless you are contending with my outline of its nature. I already outl...

This is a fair critique of modern society, but I would equally say that child (essential slave) labor in underdeveloped countries for the sake of affo...

That is fair enough. I will change that later. I am talking about minds, as ‘persons’ to me is a ‘being with personhood’ which, in turns, just entails...

I don’t buy this at all (; But I digress, let’s just say I do agree. I don’t think you quite answered my question, which was: I am saying that one cou...

That’s fair. It opens up the discussion back to metaethics; but I just wanted to make it clear that this theory was building off of the previous one, ...

I honestly am not familiar with what this claim is: could you elaborate? I can't really comment until I understand what the claim is conveying.

You are confusing something being rationally justified for me in the sense that it wouldn’t rationally justify you in the same circumstances with my p...