hypericin

I think that is a fine description of moral obligation. To refresh, my question was a response to: In the sense of obligation you described, how does ...

I think this is the strongest argument against hard realism: Looking at @"Michael"'s options: a) no moral sentence is truth-apt c) no moral sentence i...

Your participation is profoundly optional.

It might be helpful if you substantiate your notion of "obligation". I'm not aware of any normative account where moral imperatives are literally obli...

Yes. The claim is that these sort of objections you and Banno give only apply to moral theories, not theories about morality.

Or like knowing you will die at the end of the month, and sitting in your chair, watching the clock go tick... tick... tick...

Please be kind to yourself.

Certainly not descriptive ethics. If you don't like my instinct example, go with your version of moral subjectivism: "One ought do X" is true when eve...

This is a very clear layout of the possibilities (though it must seem quite "convolute" to our poor @"Banno"). But why is it a response to my post? Wa...

meanwhile still hasn't grasped the concept. Which is odd, given his very extensive readings of the literature. He must have encountered it dozens of t...

I keep seeing this mistake. Banno also makes it when he says "that we do cooperate does not imply that we ought cooperate." You are confusing metaethi...

Hilarious, when your posts pointing out my "silly mistakes" have been rats nests of mistakes.

:lol: Thanks.

See: When pressed why, he gave his usual confused gibberish. I have a negative history with him over several discussions. With you, I may have miscons...

No, you're no Socrates, I'm afraid.

"Yes, it is a metaethical claim, not an ethical one." Was a response to "And it's poverty is that it fails completely to tell us what we ought to do."...

Looks like it was the one where I said that @"unenlightened" claim was metaethical. Absurd, right? Do tell. The distinction which right here you seem ...

Do you just fling insults when you've got nothing better to say?

Oops, I somehow misread that as "all moral claims are true". Anyway, instead of being an asshole, why don't you tell me what was wrong with my previou...

:rofl: :rofl: You've already hit rock bottom buddy.

Yes, it is a metaethical claim, not an ethical one.

The idea is that all of our notions of morality, of what is and isn't moral, are themselves are a part of this system. There is no sense of asking if ...

The virtue of this account is that it fully explains our moral notions, without need of some separate ontological category. Introducing it anyway is s...

On this account, our moral beliefs and intuitions are an expression of this cooperative system. To ask, "but what if they are *wrong*?", independently...

That might be because "Such-and-such is socially advantageous behaviour" is a third-person perspective and "such-and-such is morally wrong" is a first...

:ok:

Nope. Are you just a self-important child?

Great. You think it's "chimerical". Wow. Everyone take note, Leontiskos thinks moral subjectivism is chimerical. Like so many of your "devastating cri...

From another thread: This to me is a good example of an anti-realist account. Morality is a conventionalized system devised to punishes uncooperative ...

:clap: Great post! How do you think this account of morality meshes with inequality? You describe dishonesty as a tool of the low status, as a means o...

This feels like a narrow account of subjectivism that few would endorse. In my view, people ultimately make moral judgements and decisions according t...

"You should kick puppies" is true, and "You should not kick puppies" is true. Something seems wrong here.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I never believed this was a moral statement. I can hold a moral value without holding that it is true in the same way I ...

"It is true that I hold this value" is not a moral statement. It is a statement about my personal values. Just as "It is true that I believe in evolut...

Who thinks this is realism? What anti-realist would say that? @"Michael" @@"Leontiskos" Are you agreeing with this??

"It is true that I hold this value" is not moral realism any more than "it is true that I like ice cream" taste realism.

Lol. What is this difference? Keep in mind we are talking about behavior. Though to be fair, moral realists are the ones who have always committed the...

There is no relevant difference in moral behavior between realists and non-realists I am aware of. Non-realists are not morally blind, as your analogy...

Great. I agree then, morals are determined by convention.

As I pointed out. Can you even read two sentences? Yawn. You don't strike me as very clever at all.

An inapt analogy. Moral non-realists hold the same moral values, feel the same moral feelings. We just don't assign to them the meaningless honorifics...

So to be clear, the Nazis were also enacting moral truths?

How do you know they are brute facts? By your inability to explain them?

It's called a "value". One can hold values, tastes, preferences, without being obligated that any of these is "true" in an objective sense. One is onl...

In science, brute facts are a last resort. Scientific analysis doesn't stop, "why does an election have a negative charge" is not a brute fact, and ha...

You are the child playing with essentially homonyms of "true": "True likeness!" "True levelling plane!". Just because I refuse to engage with this rhe...

Double post

Then what does a chess claim follow from, if not the arbitrary system of chess? "Taxonomical system" is a puffed up way of saying, "knowing what the w...

Can any realist name any nonmoral proposition, that is neither logically derivable nor in principle empirically verifiable, that you nonetheless are c...

No, I don't think I am. But it is an awfully weak "axiom" that is neither empirically testable nor intuitively clear. I suppose something can be true ...