Terrapin Station

Again, the whole idea of "good" is that it's a judgment, an assessment. We can make judgments about whether it's raining, but rain isn't a judgment. I...

"It is raining," as an objective fact, isn't a judgment. "Good" is a judgment

I explained that already. The rain conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. The premise is about judgments of "good"

-We only find judgments about whether something is good in individuals. -Therefore, things are only ever good to some S. Is a good argument

You changed it after I typed my response. Your conclusion was initially "Therefore it's only raining to some S"

The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise, and it's possible for the premise to be true while the conclusion is false.

Right. Rain is an objective phenomenon. There's plenty evidence of objective rain.

Again, we just agreed that whether it's raining isn't just a judgment right? So if you're asking whether it's raining based on a judgment to some S, w...

A good argument to whom, and for what?

As I noted two or three times, judgments are a particular sort of activity that individuals perform. But not everything is a judgment.

Sure. We agree about that. So we make judgments about whether it's raining. But that's not the same as whether it's raining. Not everything is a judgm...

Sure, so is whether it's raining a judgment?

It doesn't matter if you see the relevance. You should be capable of answering.

Nope. I asked you a question. You don't think that everything in the world is a judgment, do you? What definition of judgment are you using?

You should be able to answer without seeing the relevance.

So, let's try this again indeed: You don't think that everything in the world is a judgment, do you? What definition of judgment are you using?

You don't think that propositions and what propositions are about are identical, do you?

Again, judgments are a particular sort of activity that we do. That's not the whole of the world.

You don't think that everything in the world is a judgment, do you? What definition of judgment are you using?

Yes. Keeping in mind that judgments are a particular sort of activity that we do.

Sure, qua judgments.

The fact that "good" judgments are found nowhere else but in individual activity.

Combo of (a) it not being necessary to specify that it's to someone, for the people who understand this--it's redundant if you understand it, and (b) ...

Says the world. We only find "good" in judgments that individuals make.

Again, good is always to someone. That's part of what it means for good to be subjective.

"Good to S," some subject. "Good" is subjective. "x" was whatever the S in question is making the judgment about. Any x is always good or bad to someo...

Rather, the answer is "No." What it is for x to be good to S, morally, is for S to approve of or prefer x, that is, to approve or prefer the behavior ...

I'm a noncognitivist, basically an emotivist. Moral utterances are not true or false. "good" in a moral sense amounts to the person approving of or pr...

Of course, that couldn't be proven logically.

What you ought to do might be (in the service of) something you don't want?

I read it but a long time ago. I'd have to review it.

How would you provide justice for every person murdered? There's often no good evidence regarding just who perpetrated a murder.

"Not disliking" can include "being indifferent towards" for example. You'd have to give a plausible account of someone liking and disliking the same t...

You've been typing a few hundred words per post. Suddenly you can't retype or copy/paste a handful?

Well, but dislike is primarily because it's not only pain that's disliked and that factors into moral views.

This is way too long from post to post. So let's try sorting out one thing at a time. I like to tackle something and move on. An objective method to a...

When it's more dissimilar or not understood is when you get the "bad reasoning" judgment. Re validity, there are different species of logic and differ...

The significance of pain (for morality, at least) is that people don't like it.

I'm saying that nothing, objectively is well-being. If you want to focus on the brain chemistry factors re a feeling of well-being, that's fine, but (...

Why would they do that over the alternative(s)?

You can deduce that food is necessary to survive. You can't deduce that survival is good or better than not surviving, because that's not a fact. That...

There's not really any "forwards and backwards" in time. We just imagine/fantasize about that. There are just changes that happen, and changes can rel...

A count of the particles that have decayed would not be a measurement of change, by the way. Again, comparative difference is not the same thing as ch...

How did your example show that? I certainly didn't agree that it showed that.

No. What I mean is that if your ideas about morality include methods that are general to everyone, then it's not true that there are people in the wor...

It's not inconsistent with having an effect on anything or differences between systems, because I didn't say anything about that. So what would it be ...

If we can't conceive of an unexperienced or objective world, then what would we even be talking about in this discussion?

My proposal has absolutely nothing to do with effects on anything or distinctions between systems. Also, it's not a proposal. It's an identification.

Without an argument, it just seems like arbitrary ideas that have a non sequitur connection with what I'm claiming.

This is what I wrote: "I don't really understand what you're asking there. Because I don't understand how you're using "meaning" really. If you're lit...