khaled

Agreed. I wasn't talking about whether or not we have this or that inclination. I was arguing which should count as "moral". But which becomes the pro...

Arbitrary in the sense that there is no reason you should favor it over another one. Agreed. There is a naturalistic explanation for why we have the s...

I would say we are capable of being mistaken about anything.

By sharing the same arbitrary starting point.

Arbitrary ones. I think.

Agreed. But not everything we are inclined toward doing is moral. That's the naturalistic fallacy. We are inclined to steal. We are also inclined to h...

grabs popcorn

Enlighten me. In both cases: someone will probably die if I don't help (depending on the charity). The only difference I see is that in one that death...

Which is to say that "the way things are" is "the way they seem to us" (creature specific standard). I am not saying that a stick that looks bent in w...

A naturalistic fallacy is when you say "We should do this because it's natrual". For example: "People naturally want to steal therefore they should". ...

Sure let's go for that one. As if that takes away from any of the arbitrariness. The natural next question then becomes "Why pick that premise instead...

Whatever the evidence is, it is not hard and fast. The line gets blurry at foxes and wolves. But you seem to me to be asking for hard and fast. What m...

Just seems to define "the way things are" as "the way things seem to most of us" @"Andrew M" I would say that's even less interesting. Who cares?

Well considering how many debates we have about it, maybe its meaning isn't as "shared" as, say, "dog". It has some flexibility. Agreed, which is why ...

The question is more about: What is the function of Truth? We don't speak in truths, we speak in what-we-think-are-Truths. So unless you argue that th...

Obligations are obligations. Who cares which class they're in? What are "non-moral obligations"? As I've said, it doesn't need to be arbitrary. But yo...

Problem is all you can say about these axioms is that they’re weird. That’s not really important, it’s like saying you don’t like vanilla ice cream. B...

Yes How, then, are mistakes possible?

If we keep talking about things as they are, definitely. Very quickly too.

In my comment I told you how I apply it to get the conclusion “You shouldn’t have kids”. What do you think of that application? I think yours was hand...

Here: A would be the good things in life, B would be the bad things in life, and C would be the child. You are not under any responsibility to provide...

Assume there is the Absolutely True Statement A, but we do not know what that statement is. How do we go about finding A? At what point do we know (fo...

Don't know why the standard has to be "Absolute". We just need A standard. Of some sort. An aboslute standard would be required to say that "The earth...

:up:

Just curious why there are so many of them. Their number makes me think they might be on to something. Anything. Idk what this means though

Maybe it wouldn't sound as ridiculous if you bother to read it. Good night.

We were not talking about V8 Engines in German though. I agree the thread is in English outside of that one line. I don't see a reason or justificatio...

It isn't. First off, me replying in English doesn't show anything about the thread language. Besides that, I believe it is in English apart from that ...

So the thread is not in English. It was in English until it wasn't. So your original statement is wrong. My point is that there is always room for err...

êtes-vous sûr de cela?

No that's exactly what I mean. We never get it right. We only get it not-wrong until we get it wrong (or die first). "Getting it right" means there is...

What I want to say is that we can always be mistaken about what we see. That to me sounds exactly like "You don't see things as they are". If you mean...

Yea. I've still not seen a way to get that last bit "when it's true". I thought we just agreed you don't. It's easy to tell when a belief is false, bu...

Well I don't know what "know stuff without our mind" even means (sounds like "see things without eyes") but the closest thing I can approximate it to ...

Sounds exactly like: The point is we don't have any sort of "hotline to truth".

Oh that's what you mean. Ok. That's all I was saying. But that sort of makes stove's gem not such a bad argument does it? I can't tell if you think it...

So Wdym mostly?

no but that in itself is a belief. How did you confirm that one?

How so? Unless you define "true" as "you should believe this".

great. It's pretty easy to see when they're false, but how do you confirm when they're true? Also at this point I think it should be renamed to: "Gene...

sure but we never speak in truths. We speak in what we think are truths. Those are popularity contests.

Depends on the context.

Behaving morally is done for its own sake. I don't see what's weird about that. Idk what brought the whole desire thing into it. You laid out the comm...

No, the other way around. When we call something “true” or “real” all we’re saying is that we agree on it. Nothing more. We’re not accessing some “hot...

Best you can hope for is seeing things as people agree they are. I think it makes sense to call this “the way things are” when virtually everyone agre...

Behaving morally. Not all other considerations. But all considerations outside of the considerations we outlined. The ones you summed up really well: ...

Weird, I got one. I've been getting notified by quotes sometimes. Idk what their duty would have to do with their opinion of life. Don't see what you'...

I mean.... it was written in response to me. Kind of confusing. It is, but I'm just saying that nothing in it implied that I have the responsibility o...

So it's not so much that there is anything wrong with antinatalism then is there? Why is it moot in the second case but not the first? We're just talk...

What you said wasn't disagreement, you were refuting a misunderstanding of the argument. I am not arguing that there is a person who is benefited by a...