Banno

Yep. That's rather the point of the example.

...I said as much, many times.

It's not.

Were you aware that @"Terrapin Station" thinks otherwise?

Fine. I'm just suggesting we drop the objective and subjective talk as unhelpful.

OK, so I think we are done. If you do not think that such a statement has a truth value, I don't anticipate making any progress here.

If someone thinks that it is OK to kick puppies, are they right?

@"Terrapin Station" - does the statement above have a truth value?

Damnit. I'm supposed to be setting up IP addresses.

Look instead for just the ought. It's right there.

But if the distinction between objective and subjective fails, no one need give a fuck about if it is objectively wrong. Just wrong will suffice.

But here it is: the broken pup. What do you think? It's odd to me that you do not recognise this evidence.

And yet, objectively, here are seven exclamation marks: !!!!!! If it is subjective, is that no more than a question of opinion? If you say there are s...

Well, perhaps I do understand it, and since I want to show you that it fails, it's no wonder that what I say is enough to keep you coming back for mor...

So mathematics is somewhere between objective and subjective. Could moral statements have also be somewhere between objective and subjective? After al...

Yep. That's apparent. That'a all it means Well, when folk do not kick pups, then things are as they ought be. The evidence, presumably, would be the a...

So is "seven" is mind-independent, or only subjective? Or does this juxtaposition of objective and subjective fall on analysis? I say the latter.

Right. But a moral claim, by it's very nature, says what is true for everyone: Everyone ought do X.

The open question - the theme of this thread.

So it is not true that one ought not kick pups.

@"Terrapin Station" You want to make a distinction between moral statements and empirical statements based on the evidence - is that right? Could we a...

How anyone judges a colour is irrelevant to the cup being blue?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/252563 Cool.

THat would be an odd turn of phrase. You're saying the blue is in the cup, it's not just a judgement people make about the cup. SO you did not judge i...

Yep. But that is what moral language requires. Hence they cannot make moral claims, So you agree with me.

Again, what is the baggage behind your adding "itself"? Why is kicking pups bad? The evidence is before you, in the broken pup and crying child.

So, you look at the broken pup and crying child and don't see the moral import. I doubt that. I suspect that rather, you pretend not to see the moral ...

So you think that I think that I am wrong to say that moral statements are used to say what ought be the case, because you think that this excludes st...

Really? So just to be clear, you do think that moral statements are about what we ought do?

So... you do not think that morality is about what we ought do? Odd.

Hang on. I listed a broken pup and a crying child. How could you claim that these "don't have anything to do with morality"? And is that "in themselve...

Well, first I'm not arguing for an objective morality. I'm saying the objective/subjective distinction is a non-starter. And second, I have presented ...

A statement of preference says what the speaker prefers for themselves. A moral statements says what the speaker prefers for everyone. This set the sc...

Sure, you win. IF that's what this was about.

Fuck. Too many replies (not just you) that look to make basic errors. Michael, I think your approach interesting, but the format of this discussion ma...

Yeah. Not much point in continuing, Terra. Have it your way.

That's a pretty gross oversimplification.

And although subjectivist theories are wrong, that's not the main point here. The main point is that all this guff about subjective and objective mora...

I don't disagree. Let's try this. Moral statements have a truth value. Subjectivist theories deny this. Therefore subjectivist theories are wrong.

Then I should not bother reading your posts? :razz: My argument is that moral subjectivism leads to an inability to make moral claims. I think that st...

They. But what does @"Michael" think?

OK, but on analysis, such claims could not be moral claims. After all, they claim to have transcended morality. I doubt that they would want to claim ...

And if they don't, then perhaps my argument does not apply; yet if they don't, my conclusion remains, although for other reasons. Either way, they can...

Firstly, we used the word "blue" with great success before we knew that definition. Secondly, why not say that this is what we are referring to with t...

Yep.

Perhaps you might reconsider what is being said, then.

Hm. Not to speak for @"Andrew M", but I would say instead that one who claims to transcend morality in the way described cannot come back and claim to...

@"Michael" This still stands, I think.

Where's the evidence of any blue in "the light is of such-and-such a frequency"?