True and false is not a subjective judgement. Our claims are either true or false independant of what we think (in many cases. There are of course sub...
The claim is the meaning of the symbols or vocalizations, not the symbols of vocalizations themselves, and a claim can indeed be a true or false. The ...
We can make a judgement of whether some claim is true, but whether it is true or not is a fact about that claim, not merely a judgement made by us. Su...
I am not assuming any gods at all. What I am assuming is that there are moral truths objectively of our views. When we claim that something is right (...
No. What people are okay with and what is right are very often different. What's right is right regardless of whether people agree. In the same way th...
Do you mean something non-normative by "morally acceptable"? I mean, it's very clear that following the standard procedure is not always morally accep...
Is it possible you mean something non-standard by protocol? Like, something like "the best available methods of achieving the desired ends based on al...
No, protocol is not not important in considering decisions before the fact. A consequentialist would say that the way we should make our moral decisio...
Meaning is also defined in terms of definition. But more importantly, I've defined the term as I'm using it here. I mean those are both two questions ...
No, it does not need to be a desired thing. Someone might not care about whether they continue to experience things or not, but still understand that ...
In the child's case, it is a matter of not understanding what the choice entails, what it means to make that choice. In the case of the person buying ...
It doesn't imply that. It implies that the person knows what it is to make that choice. Let me give you an example of someone not understanding a choi...
I've already said that understanding a choice isn't about one's reasons for making it so I don't think we need to go over that ground again. Quite apa...
It doesn't imply that at all. The applying of one's rationality happens prior to the choice. The understanding that is at issue here is a prerequisite...
I didn't say and have applied their rationality to it. I said such that they understood it such that they could apply their rationality to it. No it i...
No, what I am suggesting is that a person understands their choice if they understand the nature of that choice and what it is to make that choice suc...
I mean, we are devolving into nuh-uh territory here. I disagree. That isn't what I am talking about when I mention someone "understanding their own ch...
Because people are capable of acting contrary to their own desires and/or having contrary desires. That really isn't what understanding a choice is ab...
Like, I can disagree with all the things you've said and point out all the strange assumptions and dubious logic there, but I think it would be better...
I mean, I gave a definition in the last post twice. What part are you having trouble with? Are you after a more formal definition? Again, "why did you...
As I said in a previous post I would say that to understand one's choices it to comprehend/recognize the nature of the choice and what it means to mak...
I don't think either was misunderstood. I don't think we need to say much about either one morally, but if I was to describe them, I would say that th...
Okay, so you mean that this indicates a misunderstand? That is less crazy, but I think still wrong. I don't think it is a misunderstanding to change y...
More generally. While I have tried to keep up with all comments, helpful and otherwise, on this post despite it not being my preferred method to discu...
This looks like you are claiming something lunatic here. Could you please clarify what you mean. Putting aside that I didn't give a reason because it ...
To not have the information you might wish to have is not to misunderstand (or fail to understand) the choice you are making. To borrow and example of...
I agree you have been telling me this, but your reasons are unconvincing. This is a bizarre claim because it seems to rule out the possibility that I ...
I do not ignore things that affect a persons ability to understand their own choices. You want "understanding one's own choices" to include more than ...
You have not shown that. You have asserted that. I have properly accounted for understanding. Very often, you seem to want words to correspond with co...
I haven't singled out cases. I have said that the morality of actions is determined by the extent to which they lead to consequencesthat protect or re...
I have at no point said that teaching someone something is never morally relevant. Simply that being taught something does (in most cases) not constit...
I mean, surely we are in a world where events can have multiple necessary but not individually sufficient conditions, aren't we? For example, if you p...
I don't think it has to be quite so all or nothing. I'd be open to the idea that certain preceding events were necessary but not sufficient causes of ...
Fair enough. I would suggest that for an agent to have libertarian free will, it must be the case that their actions are caused by the agent themselve...
I think we can be clear about what we mean even if words have more than one possible meaning. This is not self-referential at all. I define "free agen...
Again, you seem to want words to only mean one thing, and they don't. A free agent is one that has free will. Their freedom (their ability to understa...
Again, to be a free agent is to have free will, even if your freedom is restricted. Also, I think this way of thinking about restrictions is just inco...
Well, I think you're half right. I am not suggesting "force restricts freedom" as a rule. You suggested a rule and I am pointing out that it isn't acc...
I think 'goal' might be more appropriate there as I think Aristotle would say that things can have a final cause without the capacity for intentions, ...
I think calling intentions a final cause might be quite different from how that term is generally used. I confess I'm not entirely sure what you mean ...
What I mean to say is that this (the definition given in the quote you have used here) is what I take morality to be and what I mean when I am discuss...
There is almost quite an interesting point here, but free will doesn't require that nothing is caused by anything, only that our choices are not wholl...
You seem to be claiming a consequentialist bias because I am a consequentialist. I suggest that this is not bias but rather a considered evaluation th...
This is neither obvious nor the case. People are capable of misunderstanding a great many things beyond just the nature of the choices that belong to ...
I'm not sure you have shown this. There are potentially some complicated cases, but I don't think the ones you have suggested, such as stealing my car...
But the choice which belongs to you is the choice to take a walk, not to take a walk in that specific park. Though any exercise of that choice might i...
It's a matter of what constitutes reducing your ability to make a choice. Your choice is to take a walk, so stopping you taking a walk would take that...
I didn't say choosing to take a walk isn't a choice that belongs to you, but choosing to take a walk in a specific park, as opposed to somewhere else,...
Mind and body are not at all accidental. Choices about what to happens to do with your own mind, body, and property, are yours. Choices which aren't a...
Comments