Bob Ross

Hello 180 Proof, Just to let you know, I updated the section with a clearer proof; but let me respond to your contentions. If something is solely a me...

That's fair: I just revised that section because (1) I don't think I need to get into a dispute about axiological theories to prove my point and (2) I...

Hello Janus, That’s fair. I was speaking more towards justified wars, and I don’t consider (necessarily) political wars to be justified.

Hello Philosophim, I appreciate it! (: Sorry I am playing catch up with all the responses, as I was busy, and I noticed in your other response to my n...

Hello Philosophim, I am noting that one could, which is what I thought your claim was: are you just saying that the word explodes into triviality if w...

Hello Janus, I agree that most people don’t know what they implicitly consent to unless it relevant to their every day-to-day lives; but my thing is t...

Hello Leontiskos, Yes, I do. I am not playing devil’s advocate nor being deceptive: I genuinely believe that, ultimately, moral judgments express some...

Fair enough; sorry, I meant moral claim here. I asked why do normative “moral” claims need a reason and you said because “if there is no reason, then ...

Merry Christmas to you too! I want to, firstly, express my gratitude for your elaborate response: I can tell you read through it all and I know how mu...

I think I am understanding better now: you are saying that the “existing should be” is grounded in a the reason that “it is”, which would entail that ...

I appreciate your response! Firstly, I agree that the simplest way to convey something is the best but, as of now, with all due respect, I think your ...

That wasn’t the point: it was an analogy. If I say “I believe one ought not torture babies for fun” is a moral judgment that is true in virtue of the ...

No, the child cannot consent to being tortured for society's sake; but I see your point and will have to think about it: if, let's say, it was an adul...

That’s true, but that wasn’t the point. It was to demonstrate why your analogy to math failed. Why? Doesn’t me believing vanilla ice cream tastes good...

I would say that a draft is ethical under at least my original deontological theory because people implicitly consent to it via social contract. If a ...

Ok, let’s move on and have some fun! (: For starters, I disagree with 2, 4, 8, and 12. Let me briefly elaborate one-by-one, and I will let you decided...

Absolutely no worries! I do the same thing all the time! I think you are thinking that the term ‘subjective’ only has any meaning in relation to a sta...

With all due respect, you are though! It doesn’t matter what terms you call them. At the end of the day you are claiming that “morality is objective” ...

Sorry, I didn’t get a notification of this response! This is already in the OP under ‘Brief Exposition of a Correspondence Theory of Truth’, which, I ...

I see your line of thinking, but I think we could justify going to war under deontology which would preclude any justification for torturing a child t...

I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about: you are upset that I added in the question that is the essence of the OP? Both are very clear que...

I appreciate your 1-13 points, although I disagree with most of them, but to focus on the most core issue I have with it I am going to write out only ...

I always enjoy our conversations and look forward to your take on my OP! I think I need to provide some clarity on my position: 1. By ‘objective’, I m...

I like this, I will try and add it.

Absolutely no worries! I hope you had a good vacation! Thank you for the clarification: I think I understand your claim better now. Unfortunately, I d...

The intent to torture an animal is wrong, even if we end up eating it. We can kill and eat animals in ways that give them basic respect, which would i...

I just don't have enough fleshed out yet, I am working on it and will share when it is substantive enough.

Once I have it fleshed out, I will create a new discussion—just like my moral subjectivism discussion board. For now, I am just inquiring other people...

Prima facie, I would say slap him around, but, I am inclined to say no because this is how torturing people gets justified: where is the line we are d...

Fair enough.

I didn't know that: interesting. Can you please elaborate?

That is fair. I think deontologists usually mean it in the sense of their rights, and they don’t consider those to be rights we have. So “we cannot us...

:up:

Interesting: I am leaning towards a virtue ethical theory myself. I just always thought Aristotelian ethics was a form of moral realism.

You can’t control the consequences of one’s actions but, rather, only one’s intentions. Sure, if I am negligent in my reasoning and some bad consequen...

I completely agree that Kantianism is counter-intuitive; but I was wondering about deontology in general. On this specific point, I think a deontologi...

True, and they all have to contend with similar issues like this thought experiment in the OP. Deontology is exactly not consequentialism: if a deonto...

Yes, because they have forfeited their right to be told the truth by actively engaging in the violation of other peoples’ rights: I don’t see how this...

Interesting. What problems can you construct for deontology? I lean much more towards that than consequentialism. It isn’t that unnatural, and that’s ...

Fair. I typo'd it. Let me update that.

I would suggest reading it yourself: there's free PDFs online and it is only like 5 pages (if I remember correctly).

Fair question, but not the point of the thought experiment. It could be the case that no one is morally justified in sacrificing that child and that t...

I think you missed the point of the OP, it is not about would but should.

I don't quite follow: doesn't Aristotle believe that the good is objective?

I think the crux of our disagreement about beliefs and judgments is as follows. Let’s take the example of the proposition “Jane believes X” and call i...

I agree. What normative ethical theory do you subscribe to? A form of deontology, perhaps virtue ethics?

Non-objectivity is subjectivity EDIT: (sort of); and I agree it is negative. However, my argument for moral judgments expressing something subjective ...

:up:

Hello Leontiskos, I appreciate your elaborate, substantive, and thought-provoking response! Hopefully, I can adequately respond. I think the heart of ...

:lol: I see: are you saying you still adhere to Kant's ethics but with modifications to accommodate to moral subjectivism? Or would you just say you a...