Terrapin Station

The nature of morality is that it's opinions of the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the p...

Yes. What does "in kind" refer to if not what something is/what its nature is?

You don't believe that "No moral stance is true or false" is a moral stance, do you?

Yes, obviously. No moral stance is true or false.

I don't understand what you're asking. Morality is opinion-based. There's no reason to repeat the word "moral" (a la "Morality is moral opinion"). You...

? (In other words, maybe you could explain the "moving the goalposts" comment?)

So morality is opinion about the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the person in question f...

Yes, that's right.

So, for example, libertarians would have governments with public police forces, court systems, etc. How would that lead to an anarchy?

Basically I'm a socialist on economic and social welfare issues, I'm a libertarian otherwise.

Wait, so which sea was that?

Right. So what seas were North American natives going to traverse, and to where/for what purpose?

If so, it's a completely futile effort. It's impossible to eliminate the need for someone to make a judgment about the relationship between propositio...

If you're not talking about anything named God then what the hell are we even talking about? "Let's start a thread using this word, but then say that ...

I said "it." Are you not talking about anything named God?

"the relationship of accuracy"-- which can only obtain as a judgment that an individual makes about it.

Libertarians set up systems that can't lead to anarchy. At least not without some sort of revolution that would result in an anarchy, but then any pol...

Life on other planets isn't supposed to be omnipresent, is it? God is supposed to be. If we're talking about a non-omnipresent God, I'll point out the...

People could try to interpret all of the truth theories as other truth theories instead. I don't think that matters for anything. We can just go with ...

Depends on the truth theory an individual uses. For me, it's some state of affairs, since I use correspondence theory. If someone uses coherence theor...

"Objectively true" is a category error. Truth is a property of propositions. Namely, a relational property. That relational property is a matter of ma...

No. That has nothing at all to do with what makes something true.

A common term for "the same for everyone" is "universal." "Uniform" would be another option. "Varied" is a common term for the opposite of "universal....

What if the objective/subjective distinction isn't correlated to "the same/not the same for everyone"?

One of the reasons is probably that there wasn't anything equivalent to the Mediterranean Sea, the English Channel, the Irish Sea, the North Sea, the ...

Hey--a post that we completely agree on!

Sure there is. For example, when I look on my desk right now, I can't find any gods.

Anyway, you wound up skipping that it's worth diagnosing why it wouldn't be obvious to you that I'm not saying that "There is no objective truth" is o...

It has to do with ontology. You asked about making a distinction between terms, however.

Sure--a distinction in that "objective" is adding a category-error adjective to the term "truth."

Which is another way of you saying that it's not obvious to you that I'm not saying that "There is no objective truth" is objectively true. So now we ...

I'm someone who says there is no objective truth. Shouldn't it then be obvious to you that I'd not be saying that "There is no objective truth" is obj...

Are you willing to admit that you don't know if there's a refrigerator in your kitchen?

But it can't, because the actual world in no way hinges on stuff we just make up in what's essentially a fantastical manner.

In other words, how would it make sense to quantify such things in the first place?

So you actually do believe that there are things that are factually correct when it comes to (foundational) moral stances, aesthetic stances, etc. Eve...

<sigh> as we laboriously lay down some kindergarten-level material: There are different senses of the term opinion. One sense is how a person feels ab...

Because it's the sense of opinion that's appropriate for the discussion. It's the sense pertinent to the subject matter, to the phenomena in question....

Yes, relative to them. In other words, to that particular person, it's moral to act in whatever way it takes to acquire tremendous wealth.

Not in the relevant sense of "opinion."

It's an opinion about the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the person in question feels is...

Yes (for my views, at least. I can't speak authoritatively for anyone else. Also, technically the "yes" is assuming that we're talking about a foundat...

Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy. Again, if you want to critique something, it might help to understand it first.

No. If they're triggered by the piece, then they have something to do with the piece. That's the case because we're stipulating that they're triggered...

Meaning is the associative mental act as such. It's not identical to what's being associated. So, for example, a text string isn't the meaning of anot...

The rest of my post was part of my answer. The idea of the latter is to non-arbitrarily have the smallest government that won't lead to additional org...

The objective is the smallest government sustainable, so that more government or control doesn't arise in its wake. That doesn't amount to libertarian...

(¬Q->¬P) you mean for the latter.

What would it amount to to apply them proportionately, first off?

:razz: I really wonder, though. I read a lot of posts here, especially thread-starting posts, where I wonder how the topic creator expects us to figur...