Leontiskos

That's fine. At this point you have a definition or an essence. I think this is an important topic generally, especially on this forum. It relates to ...

- :up:

As I said in my first post (and also in the post you are responding to), "agnostic atheist" is an intelligible term. It's just not the same as "atheis...

Then I would say you are an atheist with respect to the Hebrew God and an agnostic with respect to unknown gods, or something like that. Yet if you be...

Right. Richard Dawkins became popular, atheism became fashionable, atheists started debating with theists all over the place, and then atheists found ...

I agree that there are good and and bad acts, but metaethics does not stop at this point. If one has no reason for why a given act is good or bad then...

Yes, quite right. In my opinion the error is a matter of fear, philosophical confusion, and an ignorance of the English meaning of the word "atheism."...

How does one know which actions are categorized under each category?

Yes, possibly but not necessarily.

I think linguists have done a good job showing that atheism in the ordinary sense means more than a mere lack or absence of belief. Yet there are self...

Oh yes, I remember, although I wasn't sure if it was public. I was just joking with @"Hanover" and his penalty box musings. :smile:

- Yes, good. Two minutes for minor penalties and five minutes for major penalties. But if the two posters are real aggressive, and it looks like it mi...

Ah, that makes sense. I do like the simplicity of Plush from the user's perspective.

Yes, I figured that. The idea is more that there are simple things that could probably help, even if Plush Forums doesn't currently possess them. When...

Yep. I've always thought it would be good to restrict users to one post every 10 minutes. Provide an occasion for thought.

- Told you so: . . .17 hours later: --- Do you see how reliable and trustworthy I am? Would you like to buy a bridge? I've contributed plenty to this ...

- I tend to agree, although I do not have a principled way to separate politics from philosophy. I mean, American election politics is generally not p...

- :lol:

- The reason the "morality" of "non-naturalism" cannot affect choices is because this "morality" is by definition undefined. For Michael a "non-natura...

Then you need to revise your definition, because you are deviating from it ('Then "this is immoral" means "one ought not do this"'). It's one thing to...

I added an edit after I saw your edit. I have to get going here, but it is worth considering that the thoroughgoing conman does not see his 'ought' ju...

Here is what I said earlier: Perhaps the conman believes she has an obligation to make him rich, but to say that someone should act in a certain way d...

No, there is no equivocation on 'should' (you are the one doing that). What we have are two rationales: She should give me the money if I am to get ri...

He might think, "She should not give me the money if she doesn't want to get conned," but does this mean that he cannot simultaneously think that she ...

He doesn't think she should do what he wants her to do?

But the salesman was not merely wanting, he was acting to influence behavior. So too with the husband. In both cases we have cases of people who act t...

I didn't realize that wants were incompatible with oughts. When a lazy husband says to his tired wife, "You should grab me a beer from the fridge," is...

Again, "We are discussing whether an 'ought' is involved" (). To use your example, if someone is trying to sell Bonita a bridge, and they are trying t...

Okay, good. So you agree that judgments about how one should act or behave bring with them oughtness. Next, I think that if one is attempting to influ...

Okay, good. You agree that oughtness can be present even where the word is not present. Now I say 'ought' involves a judgment about how someone should...

I am talking about realities, not words. 'Ought' is a reality that is very often present even when the word is not present. Do you agree or disagree?

Then you'll need to revise your definition. We are discussing whether an 'ought' is involved.

Sure you do. Someone who says, "I would be very sad if you cause them suffering," is obviously attempting to influence behavior. "Know thyself."

It is an utterance intended to influence behavior, and therefore it is a normative utterance, pertaining to 'oughts'. You speak because you believe I ...

Yes indeed.

- Do you say it in order to influence my behavior?

I think all of these questions are adequately resolved in Aquinas, and that the paradigm shift can be achieved through Peter L. P. Simpson. But paradi...

- It does. You're skimming posts madly and trying to respond in 0.4 seconds. Again, this isn't philosophy. The only time you write a substantive post ...

"You should stop causing suffering," and, "In my opinion you should stop causing suffering," is the same statement, qualitatively speaking. Fundamenta...

- I don't think you read beyond the first sentence of that reply. You're swapping a biconditional for a definition while simultaneously reifying an op...

I believe the biconditional is true. I am a moral realist. Why do you think it is false? Or, let me be more clear. You used it in the sense, "I'd like...

What's the difference between saying "I'd like it if you did X," and, "You should do X"?

Why is empathy non-moral?

I think you're saying, "It doesn't matter if it is immoral to cause suffering, and I am going to do my best to prevent suffering." Morality in the fun...

I would say that those who promote happiness believe that happiness ought be promoted, and given your definition here that would mean that happiness i...

@"Michael" - Good post. Yes, I realize there is an ambiguity, and I'm glad you brought this up. As I alluded to @"Hanover", if the conception of goodn...

- My point was not that there was only one, but that "embarrassing numbers" is an overstatement, not in evidence. Augustine is lamenting literate, rhe...

1. @"Hanover" is simply correct that figurative interpretations have been accepted since ancient times. 2. You claim is not in evidence, for Augustine...

No, it is analogous. Your disjunctive syllogism has saddled you with a square circle. I am not going to have time to engage this much going forward, b...