Surely there is only one way to be rational - one is rational to the extent that one does what one has overall reason to do. (The word 'reason' in 'ov...
The statue is made of clay. There is no statue independent of the clay. But if I alter the shape of the clay, it'll still be the same clay, but it won...
No. The naturalistic fallacy involves confusing "X is good" (where this means that X has goodness" with "X is good" (where this means that X and goodn...
Jeez. You said that if an artist could produce art with the click of his fingers, then he would have an obligation to do so. Yes? So, unless you think...
Those points do not seem to connect with my point. That is to say, everything you have said could be correct, regardless of whether what I have argued...
No I don't. The issue here is not what makes something beautiful or what beauty is. The issue is why there is an asymmetry - why is there no obligatio...
'If' - my response contained the word 'if'. 'If' you think that "Jane deserves X" is synonymous with "we ought to give Jane X" then - then - you are c...
What about deserved harm? If a person deserves to come to harm - by, say, behaving immorally - then it is good if that person comes to harm, not bad. ...
I have offered an explanation of the asymmetry. I have proposed that we have a duty not to show disrespect to others, including other things (so, incl...
To be clear: you do accept, do you, that 'Jane deserves X' does not mean the same as "We ought to give Jane X"? I mean, if you think those are synonym...
Principia Ethica. I am not defending Moore's view, however. Far from it. As I say, Moore thought that 'good' is indefinable. But he thought that on th...
It's not a truism. It's an interesting asymmetry that cries out for explanation. I am appealing to that which is, i think, self-evidently true: that w...
There can be no such thing as an 'aboriginal' concept of justice (or any other 'insert group's name' concept of justice). For example, let's say my co...
Well, I think goodness in and of itself can be defined, contrary to what Moore thought. (For Moore's entire case for thinking goodness cannot be defin...
You seem to me to be confusing two different issues - the issue of what is just, with the issue of what is right. The eye-for-an-eye principle - the l...
I am still unsure what you are asking. It seems you are asking the metaethical question "what is goodness, in and of itself?" and not the normative qu...
I am puzzled by your view and approach. You say at the outset that you are a materialist. But then you say that you think the self has nothing answeri...
I don't understand that question. Are you asking which things are good, or are you asking what the quality of goodness is? For an analogy: there's the...
Incidentally, I should add that Moore failed fully to take on board his own lesson. For he took the fact that answers to the 'what things are good' ar...
There are two distinct, but fundamental questions in ethics that, at the time Moore was writing, were not carefully distinguished. Indeed, Moore is cr...
The point I am making in the OP is not that we are never obliged to create beautiful things. There are all manner of circumstances under which one mig...
Yes, although my proposal is that what it reflects is the fact it's more important not to disrespect that which exists, than it is to produce somethin...
Yes, I agree that if someone who is capable of producing beautiful works decides not to do so, then there are a whole range of attitudes that it seems...
It's not nothing - it's a square circle. It'd be a thing if it existed. God is not bound by logic, for God is its creator. But anyway, you're still mi...
If God exists, there can be. I've already explained why. If someone is omnipotent, they're able to do anything. If there was something they couldn't d...
Yes they can. They can do anything, including things that violate the laws of logic. Anyway, it's beside the point, for it is clearly not a violation ...
Then he wouldn't be omnipotent. God is by definition omnipotent. So God can do anything. That includes refraining from creating a world. That's flagra...
You are the one who has said that Stoicism contains something important. What? What interesting philosophical thesis - so, not a psychological thesis,...
What philosophical - as opposed to psychological - theses do you understand Stoicism to stand for? Note: philosophy is not therapy and beliefs that ma...
I don't know what you mean by a 'liberalistic argument'. The point is that there is no reason to think that the psychopath has more free will than I d...
Why would psychopaths possess more free will? Let's say the options I am considering are A and B, one of which is morally right and the other wrong. I...
There is no clear puzzle or question or argument in your OP. It's all over the place. You have free will. That's in the bank. What's not in the bank i...
Cleary you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You have said that you do not believe in God. You have also said that you do not think that th...
You think the only possible explanation for the external world is God?!? Why on earth would you think that? And second, you also think - incoherently ...
By ultlimate moral responsibility Strawson means being such that one can be deserving of harm. That is to say, it would be intrinsically good if you c...
I am not sure I quite follow your argument. Plantinga's argument is that if naturalism is true, then our faculties of awareness would be selected for ...
When we judge that a proposition is 'probably' true, that is itself a judgement about what we have epistemic reason to believe. That is, it is to judg...
Again, still no engagement. You're talking 'about' his argument, but not actually addressing it. Here's what you should do, Identify Strawson's premis...
Premise 3 is false. Strawson believes that to be morally responsible you need to have created yourself. And he believes that is impossible. That's his...
If you understood the OP and understood the article, you'd see I'm making the same point. But note, you don't. You also do not understand what plagiar...
So, you think your comments above are on topic because another one on something different was? Excellent reasoning. As for the article I referenced, t...
"There are no good objections to substance dualism" JOSÉ GUSMÃO RODRIGUES Philosophy Vol. 89, No. 348 (April 2014), pp. 199-222 That well known joke j...
Have you peer reviewed anything, Banno? No. I do it all the bloody time. Now, the argument in the OP is published. Not by me, but it is out there in p...
This thread is about whether the principle of conservation is compatible with duaiism. Is A compatible with B. I have argued that they are. If you thi...
Comments