Banno

No - I also fling insults when I have something to say. Which previous post? There are so many. So for you subjectivism is coherent but wrong. For oth...

:wink: It's arsehole.

I've no strong opinion. Or at least not one I care to express here, where it will go on my file.

The distinction is only problematic when someone takes it to be hard-and-fast.

I love this. A case in point for my ever-lowering expectations. Can you give us an example of a moral truth that is not a truth?

How odd. These are not mutually exclusive. The discussion of the open question and direction of fit shows that they are not natural phenomena.

I find myself constantly lowering my expectation of what you understand of philosophy.

:wink: Kierkegaard would disagree.

, : You are obsessed with "isms". I think I might have already mentioned once or twice that my interest here was no more than to show that there are m...

And it's poverty is that it fails completely to tell us what we ought to do. It's not even in the game, let alone a winning move.

I suspected this would finally provide a divergence in our opinions...

Of course. Are you expecting mere philosophical considerations will decide what you ought to do? They might help you phrase the issues, but they will ...

Ah, I see already mentioned the Open Question. Banno's point is that the common element in moral realism is that there are true moral statements. It t...

So what. Agreement is not a criteria here. The open question argument shows that. I am not following whatever it is you are doing.

This shows, yet again, that what you are calling "antirealism" is not what the rest of us are calling antirealism. Nothing in the story here is incomp...

Simply on the grounds of logic. If the consequence of an argument is unacceptable, it is open to us to reject the argument. That's how reductio works.

Nor by algorithms. Again, if a moral theory were to advocate some horror, it is open for us to reject that moral theory on that basis. So, to take on ...

Where? I do recall objecting to the word "brute" and suggesting "hinge" for some statements. I think "Brute" was introduced by @"Michael"; I might be ...

that’s pretty convolute.

For sure :wink:

All very good questions. Have you any answers? Does this provide some clear account of objective and subjective? Is it any different for statements wi...

All moral truths are true. Are you trying to ask if there are moral truths that are not believed? Sure.

There's no single case here. Moral statements are many and varied.

Depends on the statement in question. "One ought keep one's promises" is a bit like (2) in that it depends on convention. "One ought not kick puppies ...

I'm not surprised. The term is a pest.

How is one to make sense of this? You have a preference for Vegemite but don't think "hypericin prefers Vegemite" is true? You think folk ought keep t...

:grin: There's an article on moral realism in SEP as well, the one from which my quote came. It doe snot use "objective" in the definition, but notes ...

My objection would be that "objectively" does nothing here. Hence moral realism is that there are true moral statements.

An excellent post. These are the considerations that lead to virtue ethics, to woking on oneself rather than grand moral schemes.

Yes, I notices you moving the goalposts. It doesn't help you, unless you can show how you hold a value without holding that value to be true, in which...

What is it you think moral realism amounts to, if not that there are moral statements that are true or false?

It would be taste realism. Taste anti-realists would say that "hypericin likes ice cream" is not truth-apt.

One would treat this as a reductio, that shows the supposed argument to have gone astray. That one ought not eat babies takes precedence over the argu...

Hold them how? For they cannot hold them to be true! ...and that is realism.

I rather like this. It raises more than one issue. Ryle was writing before possible world semantics gave us a way to formalise and so clarify such iss...

On this we agree.

:wink: I don't think I posted to that thread. It seemed to me to be asking why we ought to do what we ought to do. The meaning of a word is its use in...

I don't think they are. This seems to me to be a result of direction of fit. When we discover a new thing we investigate it, and then we talk about it...

Odd, how again folk will do anything to avoid actually reading the text that is the very topic of the thread.

A sharp question. The main motivation against moral realism, especially around here, is the naturalism that takes scientific fact as the only sort of ...

Well, one hopes for coherence. And as you say, folk tend to agree on the basics. That's a pretty widespread misunderstanding.

But you have your foundational principles - that is, you take them to be true. Hence you are a moral realist. How you justify that belief is over to y...

I'm not asking you to justify your moral stance, but to explain how it can be not true. In aesthetic terms, you claim would have to be that despite, s...

So you know where you stand on moral questions, but you do not consider those statements that set out that stance to be true? How can that be made coh...

In the Philpapers survey, 2020, just under 70% accepted or leaned towards moral cognitivism. 62% leaned toward moral realism. Not as high as for exter...

:smile: :wink:

I'll repeat the simple point that I am not here attempting anything like a coherent, complete theory of ethics, but simply pointing out that there are...

The quote is Ryle, not I; so it's not I who does not say. One charitably presumes that here, in the first chapter, he is setting a direction, on which...

Well, earlier in the paragraph is writ: "I have said that when intellectual positions are at cross-purposes in the manner which I have sketchily descr...