Leontiskos

- :up:

- Dude, I'm not here for eristic. The only philosophical thread I've published is an anti-eristic thread. If you're looking to argue for the sake of a...

"That's not moral and I refuse to say what I mean by 'moral'," is not a proof by contradiction, it's just sophistry. You are precisely the one claimin...

For example: The question in this case is whether, "Suffering is evil," is a subjective or objective truth. As noted above, I think, like 12*12=144, t...

Agreed, but I am at a loss as to how to bring it back into sight.

It's purely defensive or eristic and not inquisitive. It looks more like fly-swatting or contradicting than philosophy. And as far as I'm concerned, t...

I see the distinction you are trying to make, but I am not convinced that your second category does not collapse back into your first category. Presum...

Yes, but more precisely than (2), "P2: There are true moral judgments and they are not an expression of something objective." It is precisely the non-...

I must stop at some point. Of the thousands of philosophical conversations I have had, this conversation with you has been one of the most definitive....

See your own response: --- I'm tired of chasing you guys around in your circles. I think this is a good place to leave it, and in my opinion my recent...

Given that metaethics is about the grounding, foundation, and rationale of moral statements, a metaethic which allows no room for normativity does not...

There is a contradiction if they follow Hume in his is-ought distinction, for in that case a non-normative metaethical theory will not account for a n...

Just so you know, normative/non-normative does not map to ethics/meta-ethics. It's a conflation that pops up occasionally, but this is the first time ...

Some quotes from Aristotle:

Good points, explanations, and elaboration. This reminds me of the "silver rule": do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

I think this is a fairly good OP. I think it improves significantly on your previous account. I am glad to see that you are trying to get away from th...

Not so much. I do appreciate your more serious recent posts, and I shouldn't have allowed Joshs' comments to poison the well of your posts. At the sam...

Agreed. "You can lead a horse to water..." There are a lot of folks here who are not genuinely interested in doing philosophy, and others who are capa...

But you also vacillate on things like A3, so it's hard to believe these ever-shifting tactics are in earnest: With A3 you shift tactics, saying, "That...

Right. Nope, because the central issue is the is-ought divide, and, "I should brush my teeth" is an 'ought'. They will reduce it to a hypothetical cla...

Added in an edit to the earlier post:

Well we've already been through this. I give a definition of 'moral' and demonstrate a moral claim; you say it isn't moral; I ask what you mean by 'mo...

- Thanks, I appreciate that. I think it is important that the thread titles and OPs match the content of the threads.

Sure, suggestion, advice, command, remonstrance, etc. These are all interpersonal 'oughts'. I gave my fuller account here: .

I am not surprised that you would pat yourself on the back like this, with no account in sight. It occurs constantly. I find your own thoughts on most...

I don't think you managed to address the central question. Do you believe that we ought not hold contradictory positions, or do you disagree? Your arg...

I see the atheist trolls have begun to arrive (, ).

I already told you: "interpersonal 'oughts'." :roll: A3 is a true interpersonal 'ought'.

I'm going to focus on the thing you say is not the focus: If you think we should listen to our conscience, then your theory of conscience is normative...

But if a theory is using 'ought' in a non-normative way, then it is "denying the existence of true obligations and substituting some faux placeholder"...

But what is the focus, if not 'shoulds', 'oughts', and the "I thinks" of subjectivism?

But do you see how you are toeing the line between normativity and non-normativity, which I have complained about several times throughout this thread...

- Okay, so you are saying that it is not that one should listen to their conscience, but rather that people often do listen to their conscience? So we...

Is it possible to ignore and act contrary to your conscience?

:up: Well, here's the dilemma again: You said: You say that a subjective conscience morality is normative, but that anti-realist theories (including s...

You shouldn't just rewrite the OP and the title of a thread after 30+ pages of discussion. I'd say this shouldn't even be allowed, but I realize the f...

"Things which we know (or believe) to be bad or evil are things that we know we oughtn't do." We know it is bad or evil to simultaneously hold contrad...

Sure. :up: Yes, well those comments about willpower were not really Aristotelian, haha. I was just applying my own notion from common sense. I suppose...

You could think of obligations in terms of punishment and reward if you like. "If you do that you will suffer," or, "If you do that you will regret it...

I wouldn't doubt that they are different, but it is not right to say they are so different that for Aristotle willpower suffices for happiness. He cer...

I would say that in the realm of speculative reason there is the law of non-contradiction, which no one directly denies, but which they do indirectly ...

Well, if we define morality according to justice, as the realm of interpersonal 'oughts', then A3 is a moral truth.

That's odd, given that you have consistently objected that my claims are non-moral. How do you object on the basis of a concept you do not know? You s...

I think you're just being contentious at this point. You consistently refuse the burden of proof, refuse to give substantive answers, and nitpick ever...

The idea here is probably that the act involves a moral omission.

I should say that I am perfectly open to the definition of morality as justice (i.e. pertaining to interactions with others). Normative justice claims...

Ask Kant.

I think you may agree with me that Kant's epistemology was as impossible as his moral theory, and I would say, with Simpson, that this is no coinciden...

I am repeating myself, but I think the moral and the normative are the same. I don't think there are non-moral 'oughts'. I also don't think 'ought' cl...

But you're the one who objected that something cannot be pragmatic and moral in the first place, so obviously the burden is on you. You are the one cl...