Leontiskos

- What's with these popcorn replies? Are you reading my posts? I said: You replied: What do you mean by it? Apparently you mean <things we should do f...

I don't think you know what you mean by 'moral' any more than Kant did. Here's the question: Do you agree with me that, ceteris paribus, one ought not...

See: This is the fruit of Kant. :meh:

I started to sketch out a thread relating to your dilemma, but I am finding that I am simply covering ground Simpson has already covered better. Still...

I think you need to read Simpson's, "Autonomous Morality and the Idea of the Noble." There are some people in this thread who are laboring under the i...

- Sounds good J. I'd be curious to hear what you think, either publicly or privately.

Well, you're affirming the consequent of (1). That one practices virtue ethics does not mean that one denies religiously based ethics. I'm Catholic. H...

So the formalization that has pointed out is in an archived SEP article: But the central premise of the argument is something like this: - Not actuall...

That thread looks interesting, but instead of resurrecting it I am just going to make a one-off comment or two here. I was looking through a few thing...

No worries. :smile: The difficulty is that SEP is trying to take all sorts of significantly different views and fit them into neat categories. To some...

Right. I don't really expect anyone to engage those ideas here. I mostly wanted to have something to point to when people ask me about the crux at the...

I would say that, by the very substance of anti-realist metaethics, obligations aren't obligatory. If the anti-realist theory intends to be normative,...

Yes, but the first thread I drafted when I arrived was on this very topic. The post was more or less finished, but I realized I wouldn't have time to ...

Because the 'ought' requires scare quotes: <'One "ought" do X' is true when everyone believes it's true.> It is a kind of definition or stipulation: <...

Is it this idea?

<This thread> :smile:

This thread has been largely polemical, but some recent developments in a different direction have led me to draw up this post. I am thinking of and '...

Well that's ambitious! Don't let me deter you, but if you want to start slow I would recommend his Nicomachean Ethics, which has become the go-to ethi...

Contrarian folk. Sort of like philosophers. I did find a link to the archived article on the SEP site itself if you wanted to use it for that thread: ...

- Yes, good luck. Aquinas draws heavily on Aristotle, and Aristotle is also a good source even though he wasn't a religious thinker in the same way as...

Sure. Note that your (2) here is a bit different from (1) up above. So yeah, you've got a logical tension there. I personally reject (3) outright (), ...

Yes, but the "range" is not entirely overlapping. Specifically, there are some religious moral truths that are not accessible to natural reason. Thoma...

My consistent point throughout has been that "moral subjectivism" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Some versions are incoherent, others are plainly fal...

Your edit: If (1) is true then subjectivism allows for obligations. Everyone here seems to be in agreement that (1) is false, including you. This seem...

Well, not quite. You said something similar and I already agreed. You said: Note, "some." Two self-proclaimed subjectivists in this thread have alread...

Yes, but (1) is false. I am speaking about sufficiency. "Society said so, therefore I ought to obey," is a false statement. knows why. A further premi...

I thought they might have. No, I tend to think Anscombe was wrong about (1). Aquinas didn't read Aristotle the way Anscombe reads him in that article,...

Sure, then we're back to a theory of "morality," and you're safe again! Of course your claim here does seem to run up against your earlier claim, "We ...

Hah. What is the "modus tollens" reading, or the logical implication that you have in mind? I couldn't find that reference in the SEP article you link...

Yep. It's a tough nut to crack. I sometimes think I've overcome it but of course doubts always remain when it comes to Anscombe. Granted, I have less ...

Those who make laws for themselves don't need to break laws when they can simply change them, or grant themselves a dispensation, or something like th...

- Fair enough, I appreciate that. Sorry for being dismissive. :victory: (A peace sign, not a victory sign :razz:)

I think Anscombe sums up the problem. We can never manufacture binding rules for ourselves. Self-legislation does not bind:

Right, but I touched on this earlier when I mentioned positive law and its relation to morality. The common opinion is that a law can be immoral. Furt...

I think they are both normative; they are both "ought"-claims. By "descriptive" I am thinking of the "is" in the is-ought distinction. It is the compl...

hypericin, you're just out of line. No one here is being as escalating or trollish as you are. You continually misread posts in order to take offense,...

Okay, thanks. My problem with this is that morality is a normative affair. If someone is making purely descriptive claims, then they are not engaged i...

See: Are you committed to the proposition that, on the version of moral subjectivism you are examining, the consensus has moral weight and the votes h...

From someone who thinks dishonesty will lead to the collapse of society? Yes, in fact. :grin: (I agree, by the way.)

There is a great quote to this effect in the Magna Moralia by Aristotle (or whoever wrote it). I couldn't find it. :nerd: --- In any case, meta-ethics...

You are assuming that (3a) is coherent, but when presented with the incoherencies of (3a) you only said, "Well it's like chess." Instead of addressing...

I am glad the positions have now scrambled a bit. The thread was becoming dull before that. But a common interpretation of Akedah (The Binding) is tha...

And I suppose "fuck off" is not a normative utterance? :roll:

I'll take your moral indignation as a sign that there is an implicit 'ought' in your account. :wink:

I agree. This is a point that I have <pounded> before, and I think it's actually one of the most widespread problems on this forum. So even if I were ...

Right, I edited to say "general consensus." The consensus of a non-elected or non-representative body is an authority in a way that excludes the sort ...

If the nature of chess is dictated by an authority, then it is not the result of a general consensus. A vote and an appeal to an authority are two dif...

I mean, you're making an argument from authority. "The chess foundation said so, so it must be true." I think this chess tangent is a dead end. This i...

I agree with @"Michael". "Society ought not collapse" is not a physical reality.

Only if the rules of a game do not constitute the game would this argument succeed. That seems highly implausible. But you haven't answered my central...