Two words: Ockham's razor. Moral relativism explains that in the way that a normal person would explain that, minus the additional unwarranted assumpt...
My argument consisted in showing that your premise, even if true, doesn't refute Hume's claim, only at best your misunderstanding of it. Your understa...
Tell me about it. It's bad enough that this discussion is teacher-pupil, but it is far worse when the pupils are bad pupils. Bad pupils repeat the sam...
I didn't say that Kant is a joke, I said that his categorical imperative is a joke, because it is. And yes, obviously murder is wrong in some sense, a...
You claim to have read the encyclopaedia article about Hume's moral philosophy, and particularly with regards to his famous quote that reason is the s...
No, your reply is what's not reasonable. It is not at all reasonable to assume that absent objective morality, no one should complain about any attemp...
Jesus H. Christ. No, that's certainly not about right. That's the same gross misunderstanding of moral relativism that I've been repeatedly correcting...
Haven't you ever typed up a sentence which doesn't so abuse the English language? It's his crazy pet tangent. At least you're thinking about it proper...
The encyclopaedia entry you linked to explains much of it. "His view is not, of course, that reason plays no role in the generation of action. His the...
And there is no exception to Hume's claim that reason is the slave of the passions, as opposed to your own claim, which only thinks it is attacking Hu...
Yes, higher standards. I don't appeal to authority or to emotion, for example. That is not uncommon for religious people. It is lesser. Less reasonabl...
That's not a simple question. Reason, logic, experience, common sense, science, intuition, explanatory power... Yes. But I am not other people. I have...
This makes it sound like a choice, when it actually isn't. I replied in a similar fashion, "I'll go with...". But it actually isn't a choice. It's not...
Nope and nope. No, a point about correctness broadly speaking is not relevant to a point about a very specific sort of correctness. It is fallacious t...
And whatever you do, don't mention anything about McCarthy engaging in pig chimp sexual relations. That's a private matter between McCarthy and his an...
I would like to take this opportunity to complain about Michael Ossipoff's idiosyncratic style of formulating posts. It is not of an acceptable gramma...
So, the question is something like: fairy tales and submissiveness to a supposed authority, or reality and independence, i.e. you are your own authori...
Hear, hear. How many times have we seen this? In how many discussions? And over and over again. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but it is hard not t...
It is first and foremost a matter of moral feelings. If most people felt differently about it, then they would reason differently about it. Perhaps no...
I never said that it was an end. It is obviously what we both do here - it's what we're doing now - and that's all that I said, capiche? Our exchanges...
If you know why Hume said that, then you'll know why I said that. You are unfamiliar with Hume, I take it? There are some good online resources to hel...
That's what we do here. It's a philosophy forum. I'm glad you acknowledge that. My concern was that you were confusing the two, given that the subject...
I feel exactly the same way. Good thing this stuff about a harmonious society is a load of codswallop, so we don't ever have to worry about that. Phew...
Oh god, not another bad analogy relating to foodstuffs. It's not impossible that I can be convinced otherwise. My morality isn't absolutely rigid, it ...
I conclude from that that you don't know what morality is, or you deliberately conflate two different things, which is illogical. The error is clear t...
No, that's nonsense, and is the cause of much of your confusion. It is about ethics. It has a different aim to normative ethics. It aims to explain wh...
Boy, this is very "meta" now. Yes, I care enough to at least analyse whether or not what you're raising is genuinely a problem and respond with the re...
What is or isn't normatively compelling is completely irrelevant in meta-ethics. Lol. The normative is of significance in normative ethics, not meta-e...
But they can and do. Just look around. That's how morality works. That's what it is. It is just people making judgements, approving and disapproving, ...
Firstly, if it's not a problem for me, as a moral relativist, then why should I care? Secondly, it all boils down to "preference", or rather, moral fe...
Oh come on. You can't be serious. Interestingly, despite appearances, that says nothing at all. You implicitly acknowledge meta-ethics, you just don't...
You've been exposed as evasive, manipulative, and intellectually dishonest. I want nothing more to do with you. But I hope you see the error in your w...
Yes, really. Descriptive moral relativism is pretty damn obvious, even to disinterested observers. Even Noah Te Stroete, who is strongly against meta-...
That's fine, but then you have to explain the supposed logical relevance. It doesn't pose a problem internally for any moral relativist, and if you ar...
Jesus Christ. I just want you to be intellectually honest for once. You do not have to try to support your view. I am not demanding that. I am demandi...
The problem is that that's not logically relevant in the appropriate context of meta-ethics, except by connecting the dots as a fallacious appeal to t...
It is simply not true that under moral relativism, all moral arguments are equal, nor that that is "its nature". And under moral relativism, there is ...
Comments