Terrapin Station

I don't at all agree with that by the way. (Given that you're implying that some judgments are better than others objectively, or that it's true that ...

There's no word game to this. I'm not hinging anything I'm saying on any particular words. I'm trying to explain the point of view to you so that you ...

If moral stances are preferences, and you have preference A, how is preference ~A just as good to you?

Accept it how? Accept that they have a different judgment? Or accept it in the sense of saying, "Well, that's as good as my own judgment"?

Okay, subjectively two competing stances aren't on equal ground, are they?

Indeed you're not understanding me. Your framework here is that we have to defer to what's objectively the case. Objectively, the stances are on equal...

Why not? Again, the idea of that only makes sense if you think we must defer to objectivity. You're focusing on the fact that objectively, both stance...

Relativism or not, in what sense does anyone not "allow" others to have whatever moral views they have? I'm not sure I know what sort of thing you're ...

Ah--well, that's up to realists on universals to try to make sense of. It's their doctrine. :wink:

You mean so that one wouldn't hold both (1) and (2)? Sure. They're different options about what one might have in mind with "shared." The idea isn't t...

I just added some stuff to my post that's pertinent to this. Again, since morality is preferences of interpersonal behavior, our preferences do not wi...

On my view, by the way, "correct" is a category error there. We can say that each person feels their stance is morally right. You're going to feel tha...

It's just imagining a possible universe. There's no need to stipulate its origin (or lack of the same). If the start doesn't exist there can't be a po...

No it wouldn't. We could have a universe with infinite time and two elementary particles and that's it, for example. "Matter had no temporal start" is...

Good points.

Again, time matters because that's what people are saying re "something coming from nothing." It's a temporal idea. You can't successfully argue again...

Why isn't anyone (else) addressing the ontological ambiguity of "shared"? We need to pinpoint just what sense we're referring to in order to answer th...

I'd agree in my sense (3) above, at least. I'm a nominalist, so I have issues with someone having in mind my (1) or (2) above.

One thing that's important to clarify re "shared meaning" is whether someone is positing (1) one "thing" that's multiply present--a la the traditional...

Exactly.

How am I supposed to know? It was your idea. It's an idea that I don't agree with, hence why I was challenging it. What I'm explaining is that if "X i...

Yes, that and every other empirical claim. It's a basic tenet of science methodology, for example, that empirical claims are not provable. They're at ...

It's nonsense, as no one has proof of any empirical claims.

Sounds like a homework question that I can't help you with, as I don't recall what either would have said that might have amounted to their justificat...

You're writing "consider the needs of others" but I'm guessing you have in mind something more like "acquiesce to the needs of others." There's no evi...

I agree with I like sushi. Spears, fire, clothing, etc. are technology. You can try living without if you like. I'd rather not go that route.

That I don't at all agree with. They reach a different "conclusion" than most people. That doesn't mean that they're not reaching moral stances.

The idea is the same as "You can't have a perception without it being a perception (obviously), but the perception can be of something that's not itse...

If the very definition is that it's preferences of interpersonal behavior, why would we need to point that out again? And why would anyone think that ...

We're talking about your notion that those statements are about meeting some specific criteria, no? It's like all of a sudden you forgot the specific ...

We can value the same things (nominalism aside). And we can cooperate with each other. I'm not sure why that would need a special classification ( "in...

Obviously I disagree, because I just said that it's not possible to make any sense of that. The challenge I proposed to you was to make sense of it. S...

But that only follows if one prefers "bones" that tend toward structural integrity. Insofar as individuals do not prefer that, what would be good abou...

Yes, it's a term of approval or preference. "Yaying," accepting, sanctioning, etc. the thing in question.

"good" in a moral sense amounts to the person approving of or preferring the (usually interpersonal) behavior in question, if not directly, then as a ...

Yes, in motion/in relation to other matter. I don't see it as picking on anything if I'm simply reporting the truth to you. ;-)

Forces are simply matter in "action," in relation to other matter though.

No one would be saying that there's something and nothing (to the same extent, in the same respect, etc.) at the same time. (2) only contradicts (1) i...

Say what? How does this answer how anything is good with respect to some criterion, where we'd be at all capturing the conventional sense of what we'r...

No, it's true or false that cauliflower has x effect on nutrition. Having x effect on nutrition isn't objectively good versus having not-x effect on n...

How would it make sense to say that anything is good in respect to some criterion/criteria? That would never capture what "good" refers to. For exampl...

I don't think it makes any sense to parse forces as something separate from matter.

I didn't intend to suggest voluntarism in my definition.

This strikes me as very odd to jump to right after "knowledge is possible." I'm curious why he'd see the human experience of knowledge as experience o...

I'm familiar with the standard distinction. The issue is that I'm not sure that the standard distinction amounts to anything "substantial." For one, I...

So you don't think that if there's a standard, it has to be something, it has to have become the standard through some particular means, etc.? It's ju...

lol at the idea that it has to remain a mystery and it's somehow off-limits to investigate it.

I'm not saying this is necessarily what's going on, but it's not uncommon for people to look at "belonging to a religion" as being akin to ethnicity. ...

I definitely agree re knowledge/understanding--because it's impossible to survive as a human without those things. So that's pretty much built into us...

All one would have to say is "If you do such and such actions, maybe 'as if' certain things were true, or in the manner of playing along with some par...