Bartricks

And note, I did not say that moral values and prescriptions are human values and prescriptions. I concluded that they are not.

No, a normative rule is a prescription. It tells you to do something. Only a subject can tell you to do something.

And even in the extremely unlikely event that your bizarre claim is true, it would do nothing to show that machines can have knowledge. Although perha...

No, that's just a bizarre claim that I see no reason to think is true

No, if there are beliefs that cannot be expressed in a language that's irrelevant to whether they will qualify as items of knowledge.

I don't know what you're talking about again.

You're conflating descriptive rules with normative rules. Morality, if it involves any rules, is going to involve normative rules. And is those that r...

You're changing your position. Knowledge involves having a justified true belief, whatever else it involves (actually, I'm sceptical it has to involve...

I know, that's why I pointed out that the arguments are valid and that they have premises that are true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, they appea...

Knowledge requires a belief, machines do not have beliefs, therefore machines do not have knowledge.

So if you're looking up something in philosophy, which is better - Wikipedia or Stanford Encyclopedia? It is Stanford hands-down. Why? It is written b...

I think there are or could be moral rules, but there don't have to be. But rules require a ruler just as values require a valuer. All roads point to a...

We don't have to agree to that at all - and I don't agree to it. You mentioned rules, I simply pointed out that rules or no you're not generating a co...

Like I say, a machine cannot know something because a machine does not have mental states and beliefs are mental states and knowledge essentially invo...

I still do not follow you. Like I say, the argument I gave was valid. So either you do not see this, or you take issue with a premise - which one? Loo...

I do not see how you are challenging premise 2. Does the machine value anything? No, it is a machine. A counter-example to premise 2 would have to be ...

I didn't say 'God', but 'a god'. Big difference. It's the difference between saying "someone killed Janet" and "Mr Someone killed Janet". Anyway, I do...

I don't really know what you're talking about now. To know something is to have a true belief about it, whatever else it involves. And computers canno...

So, just to be clear, you think that forcing someone to have sex with you is morally indistinct from forcing someone to play tennis with you? Note, th...

I think moral values are the values of one subject. For example, I seem unable to value something in some respect and disvalue it in that same respect...

Needless to say, when experts start talking outside their areas of expertise - so, when a neuroscientist starts talking about free will or a biologist...

Like I say, if your doctor says the mole is cancerous you are justified in believing it to be cancerous, whereas if your mate Tom says it is cancerous...

The contemporary debate over moral value is, in my view, in a hopeless state of disrepair. On the one hand you have moral philosophers rejecting - qui...

No, there are experts. If your doctor - an expert on the human body and what can go wrong with it - says that the mole on your arm looks dodgy and you...

And no, I realized that values need a valuer by consulting my reason. For instance, thoughts require a thinker. As I am thinking, I can now conclude t...

We're going in circles. This argument establishes that moral values are not my values: 1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something nec...

Ah, I think you've been drinking. Wikipedia is written by people who like pub quizzes, not experts. For instance, consider something you know a lot ab...

You're addressing your argument, not mine. I didn't say humans can't be the "valuators of morals". I said that a) moral values are values, b) values a...

They are not human because if I value something that does not make it valuable. 1. If moral values are my valuings then if I value something it is nec...

'A god' rather than 'God' - or perhaps just 'a mind' to avoid using contentious labels. The argument implies, in other words, that there is a mind who...

And they exist, because moral values clearly exist.

Because the subject whose values constitute moral values would be a god. Moral values are not my values or your values, but they are someone's (as the...

It implies a god exists.

Confusion is also caused by the fact 'objective' is ambiguous and can also mean 'goal' and 'impartial'. Objective does not have those meanings here. B...

No, because to say that something is 'subjective' is to say something about its composition. Pain is subjective because it is made of states of a subj...

Here's a refutation of your case: 1. If Bitter Crank is right and there is nothing ethically special about sex, then other things being equal (so equa...

What is wrong with your argument is that you are dogmatically assuming that there is nothing special about sex and then rejecting all the evidence to ...

Let me try and head-off some initial objections. One might try and object to premise 1 on the grounds that for something to be morally valuable is for...

That seems a bit OTT to say the least. I think your beef is with the publishers who make lots of money off peer review publications. And, perhaps, wit...

Wikipedia is not peer reviewed and no respectable university will be happy with anyone citing wikipedia in student essays. Wikipedia has its uses, of ...

This is a reply to the final bit - no, I don't 'want' antinatalism to be true. Even if I did - and I repeat, I don't - that would be irrelevant to the...

This is a reply to your second bit. Do you deny the premise? You haven't said. If you deny it, provide a case against it. If you don't deny it, why do...

This is a reply to the first bit - no, I care about accuracy and I am not misusing the term 'Kantian' in labeling the argument as such. But this threa...

I don't think your example works, but there is one that it is more difficult to deal with. Your example doesn't work because lying has two elements - ...

What an astonishingly silly point - no, I am NOT opposed to those who have been brought into existence being educated. I am opposed to people bringing...

Total and utter nonsense. You fall far below the threshold level of competence needed for profitable debate.

Well your thoughts do not determine what's true.

And you're attacking a straw man. I am not arguing against educating children. Perhaps if you'd been made to undergo more education you'd have realize...

What's wrong with the reasoning?

The argument is Kantian and it isn't my fault you don't know what that word means. This thread is not about a label, it is about an argument. The labe...