ChrisH

I'm not sure what you're asking. For me bodily continuity arguments simply don't work. As far as I can tell psychological continuity is what is import...

This is an argument against the wisdom of undertaking human cloning. For what it's worth I think non-destructive human cloning would be both morally a...

But this does bring a moral dimension into the assessment. My view is that it doesn't matter and I think there are moral reasons why it shouldn't matt...

My point is that, in my view, both successfully survive as continuations of the pre-cloned-original. Pointing out that from the perspective of one, th...

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in your view, only the original can be deemed "valid". However you imply that If we haven't got fir...

I don't think it works. As far as I can tell, all you've done is show (not surprisingly) that the clone and original are different people. What you ha...

It wasn't clear to me what argument you were making. You stated the following but it appeared to me to be unargued. You appear to take it as given tha...

I don't think it makes sense to talk about personal continuity between you and your twin. I'd have thought what is pertinent is the degree (or lack) o...

Surely not??? This couldn't possibly happen on this forum. :razz:

Yes that more accurately reflects what you're attempting to say. The original was open to Michael's criticism.

I think Michael's making a distinction between "beliefs about it" and "beliefs". A claim that "john "believes X" is not dependent on any belief about ...

I don't think Michael is saying that the the truth of the proposition is dependent on what "we" believe. He is saying that the truth is dependent on w...

Apologies, you're right - It's Bob who's missing your point. Yes, but a belief about a proposition cannot make that proposition true or false (which i...

I think you're missing Bob Ross's point. A belief that "aliens exist" is not the same as a belief about the proposition "I believe that aliens exist"

For what it's worth, I understand exactly the point you're making.

It seems you're agreeing that moral positions are grounded on personal values and that those values are based on a hidden objective moral truth (but p...

Ok. I always understood that objective moral truths, if they exist, do so without regard to anybody's personal values.

That doesn't follow. What I think you mean to say is that they have no objective grounds. From this it doesn't follow that there are no grounds for di...

I don't know what you mean by this. Equally valid in what sense?

I think so (I include unspoken demonstrations of approval/disapproval in the general term 'moral discourse'). Not sure what you mean.

Not sure what point you're making.

I certainly think it's an important aspect of moral discourse. It seems inconceivable to me that one could take the position that X is immoral but not...

As I see it, the point of a moral position is not simply to defend one's views but, more importantly, to persuade others.

I don't identify as a moral relativist because it is much misunderstood (particularly by moral objectivists). You appear to to take the view that mora...

No this does not follow. All that follows is that it is moral in the opinion of many people not "it is moral".

I don't know what you mean by moral in and of itself. Such opinions are moral opinions (in my first sense above) but as I said: I haven't identified a...

I think you're confusing two meanings of moral. The first describes any value/opinion/preference broadly encompassed by what is generally agreed to be...

I broadly agree with the view that all 'notions of morality' are essentially 'nothing but personal fancy' (personal values). However, it doesn't follo...

What I was attempting to say was that a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others is not, in my view, really a morality - it's aesthetic...

Isn't a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others no different to personal aesthetic preference?

The mere appearance of 'suppression' (insistence on preconditions that Trump would never accept) would reinforce Trump's supporters' sense that he's (...

I think Cooper is absolutely correct. Any (perceived) attempt to suppress Trump's idiotic ramblings would be counterproductive.

I'm surprised this doesn't happen as a matter of course.

Yes, this was pretty much my take on Strawson's position.

Thanks.

In an Interview with Galen Strawson: "I just want to stress the word “ultimate” before “moral responsibility.” Because there’s a clear, weaker, everyd...

Sure, and all those who died were quitters. Absolute nonsense.

What difference? Or do you mean to say "no difference"?

This isn't my experience. Of course some people will make all kinds of wild claims but "just as often" seems like hyperbole.

If it's courageous to bow out, is it cowardly to soldier on?

It's impossible if by 'same you mean numerically identical but not if what is intended is qualitatively identical. When it is asked if two physically ...

I don't think it's a problem.

I don't see why.

Yeah. It's a hard problem (of our own invention).

I have absolutely no idea. All anyone can do, whether it's within physicalism or any alternative, is produce untestable hypotheses (guesses).

I don't deny that we have conscious experiences. I assume conscious experiences can be explained within physicalism.

I wasn't casting doubt on your interpretation of the hard problem. I'm simply saying that there is no way in practice or in principle to determine if ...

Welcome to the hard problem.

This is what I'm challenging. You have no way of knowing that It doesn't "feel" anything. It's an assumption.

You're talking about behaviour. I'm not. I'm talking about what TheMadFool describes as "what it feels like (qualia)".