Banno

With , we are just back to the beginning, playing with essences again. Anyway, I'm happy. Essences are decided more than discovered.

Ok. So we have an end to this part of the discussion? Relating this back to the topic, If someone is identical to their genetics, then (arguably) they...

This is like puling teeth. Let's see if I can articulate your argument for you. Your intuition is that there is a problem with the symmetry of belief ...

All good questions. I think we are getting into accessibility relations. So in our natural language we would like to say that it's possible that water...

I think you need to fill the question out. That's why I returned it to you. Generally, I don't see that your last few posts show much at all. It looks...

What do you think?

Well, the contention is that if water = H?O then ?water =H?O. I wouldn't characterise what you said as a misuse. There is a difference in sense betwee...

So I'm saying the extensional case is consistent. I suspect we can also deal with any intensional case without inconsistency. That is, I do not think ...

It matters that you have performed an immoral act because the act was immoral. That's what "immoral" does.

But there is a difference. In one you have performed an immoral act. Well, yes, it does. That's the point. ...because you refuse to recognise the ethi...

Duelling dictionaries? Really? My bolding. One ought not do what one ought not do.

You've lost me.

Yes, they do. In the first one, eating meat is immoral. In the second, it isn't. What more practical difference could there be? But this has been poin...

What's that about? Who is Calum? What do you think this shows?

Hmm. Then this might need clearing up. Can a choice make the world other than it will be? You see, that we must make choices is what ethics is about. ...

That you ought not eat meat does have practical relevance. You are simply playing on the word "practical" by limiting it to what "is" the case, and ex...

John Searle gives the most complete explanation. I think I;ve already pointed you to the thread on Institutional Facts. Yes, individuation is a social...

It should by now be clear that moral truths do not tell us about how the world is, but about how the world ought be. How the world ought be is not som...

And I'm pointing out that what counts as an individual is nothing to do with substance, but with how we choose to use names. You are using a screw dri...

As if cause were easier to understand than how to use a proper name.

The twin example simply shows that personhood is far more complicated than could be captured by a simple algorithmic definition such as has been propo...

Perhaps; or perhaps your argument is not as clear as you suppose. It seems that the topic has been lost - unless @"Frank" is arguing that since @"Hano...

Perhaps you missed the pivotal point. One cannot learn one's first language from a dictionary. Therefore there is a way of understanding the meanings ...

What is happening here is a bit more than just an observation. No number of observations could show that in every case, what we would call water is wh...

Not too far, perhaps. Talk of virtues and vices, dealing with here and now, ad hoc rather than programatic decision making, allowing for review of the...

Yep. In so far as there is much of interest in this thread, it's about how not to talk about morality and ethics. It's all a bit of a mess.

Perhaps. But what about ethics? It's about what to do, and so faces forward. Sounds like you really bought in to the Garden of Eden stuff.

Hello, Bert. What's new? What do you want to talk about?

Yeah, you introduced that only after folk showed the OP wasn't working. And now, after all the hard work of pulling the "isms" off your account to see...

No, not even that, not yet. Here's the poverty of empiricism, naturalism and so on, when it comes to ethics: in looking at how the world is, nothing i...

I'm no fan of the word "morality'. But choosing expediency is as much a choice as choosing @"Bob Ross"'s latest grand ethical scheme. Why not choose e...

And yet we each must act, and hence each must choose what to do.

So your thread argues that apart from the moral reasons for being moral, there are no other reasons to be moral.

:roll:

Yes. Nothing non-morally bad will happen. But you have only ruled out moral deficiency by fiat. It remains that if vegetarianism is true, then eating ...

Ok, so except for all the morally bad things, nothing morally bad will happen... Not such a profound observation.

Clear as mud. "Nothing bad will happen if I disobey an obligation" - the "bad" thing that will have happened is that you will have disobeyed an obliga...

Yes, I read that. Very odd. As if someone could have a moral belief that they ought not eat meat without believing that "I ought not eat meat" is true...

Yes, a very odd post, in which you claim that there are no "practical implications" for vegetarianism while pointing out that the vegetarian will prob...

Well, no, it isn't - not in so many words. From here it just looks as if you slide the goal post. I don't understand this phrase. If one is under an o...

This is to my eye the best way to understand rigidity - as a rule of grammar. It sets out a way of talking about counterfactuals that inherits the coh...

How is this not a slide from obligation to motivation? Sure, there are issues of weakness of the will. But they presume an obligation avoided, and hen...

, I think your take here quite weird. Edit: it's as if you have not understood the difference between "is" and "ought", and so can only formulate your...

:rofl:

How could they not?

I'm still interested - working through IV. It's a time of year that is full of distractions.

Thanks, . Firstly, just to be sure, what I am suggesting here is that your approach of introducing modalities into the discussion serves not to clarif...

It's not an answerable question.

Well, talk of experience is different again. A third layer, so we have alethic, deontic and now epistemic modalities. And so back to my point: the fra...

Is the suggestion that these two worlds might be identical? But there is a difference - in one the holocaust is inherently evil (whatever that might m...