ToothyMaw

Some sort of advisory board like the mods of this website, apparently. Logistically unfeasible unless it is only applied to public figures.

For you to mention the Nazis.

Took a little under two hours this time.

Hanover says he doesn't think the government should necessarily enforce the ethical standards he proposes.

Do you know what meta-ethics is?

"Murder is wrong" would be an example of a moral claim that could be objectively true (a proposition). "You shouldn't murder" would be normative. "Don...

I would say that the discourse that develops with less limits on speech is somewhat stochastic, insofar as trends can be recognized - but you cannot a...

Can we really evaluate intention so easily as to actually say that with any confidence? Musk would have Twitter open to anyone. He might remove the re...

You advocated for relativism, even if you said that you would argue your ethics are superior, which makes no sense.

But Hanover, where does the censorship end? What about the greased precipice? Seriously, though, I think the argument in favor of free speech absoluti...

It generally supports things I find much less problematic than those things that would be allowed under relativism. Selective infanticide for babies t...

Those are not adequate answers, as they just assume things. And while those assumptions are commonly held, and perhaps even reasonable, they do not ad...

I think the vast majority of people have no idea what meta-ethics is, and I have honestly never heard any regular people talk about anything even rela...

It addresses why people believe those things are wrong and right but doesn't address at all whether or not moral claims can be objectively true. I hav...

look up "Hume's Fork"

Would you rather throw your lot in with an ethic reached with reason and some basic assumptions that reduces suffering, or one that could allow all of...

Would antisemites be doing a good thing if they refused to bow to the will of people who aren't assholes? Okay, you seem to be assuming (2), which wou...

I haven't read any Hume. I know of his fork, however.

Murder is bad because it is defined as bad? Really? I guess on a local level it is bad, but something doesn't become objectively true just because it ...

The "is" of morality doesn't address justifications for morality, which is the point of this thread. I know evolutionary psychology is great and all, ...

I'm using it as an example of something that could be logically true based on some axiom, not claiming that it is axiomatic that murder is wrong. Reas...

It makes no difference. Yes, but it remains that if correct means good and incorrect means bad, there would be contradictions, even if people are fall...

If one says that good is to be associated with correct, then wouldn't wrong be associated with false? And if that is so, then how does falsifying thin...

You shoe-horned that in. Your claims about the reality of people equating good and correct mentioned nothing about people falsifying things. I don't s...

I would hang on every word.

I have some sympathy for Frankenstein's monster, even if he was grotesque. Kind of relatable, I think. Yes, I think people pursue correct answers and ...

It could if God made himself apparent. But that probably won't happen.

I wasn't speaking ill of such a project.

Yes, your phrasing was so confusing I couldn't even comprehend what I was writing as I was writing it. Yes, I am a simpleton. So I was right: if somet...

Honestly, Sam Harris is the best on this one, imo. If we do what Javra says and try to form some sort of Frankenstein's monster of psychology, ethics,...

I actually appreciated your contributions. That verse is apt, although I appear to be on the wrong side of it.

I have determined that that means that if something is true it is true only with respect to a certain object if it is not related to other things. And...

Then what would make it right or wrong to reduce conscious suffering? What would tie a shared psychological state to objectively true moral claims abo...

I agree that we don't have access to transcendental moral truths, but we cannot rule them out, which is the point of my OP. Many arguments that are no...

A lack of disagreement doesn't mean that something is objectively true, merely that everyone agrees on it. You could indeed fashion propositions after...

You could make an argument from unlikeliness that it is unlikely that our morals - obviously the result of many different things - are true, but that ...

While it is apparent that Haidt's views might be compelling, they don't seem to address justifications for morals, although he addresses why we have t...

Think: "murder is wrong".

I'm not saying true and not-true can logically exist, but rather that an injunction against something like murder could be true and represent a statem...

In my OP I do at least recognize that some moral axioms could be true, and that some (many?) attempts to refute them don't make sense.

Ah. Okay. My bad. I didn't understand you.

Extrinsic moral claims, such as that animal abuse is wrong, must always eventually be traced to an axiom, and for that extrinsic moral claim to be tru...

That morals must work is indisputable, but that some are inborn, or tied to human nature, and others learned, says little about whether or not those m...

My argument would not be that moral claims must be both emotional responses to experience and also propositions, but rather that both can exist and ar...

Dude, I can't understand shit that you write. Your writing is not bad by any means, but your style is difficult for me.

Also: I could list the many characteristics of rats - dirty, vicious, etc. - and use this as a basis for the belief that rats should be considered pes...

Note that I amended myself to "are, largely, found to be", not "are". How does he support the assertion that they cannot be propositional in addition ...

I think that if something is not true, that means it is false. At least if you frame it the way you do in the OP. However, I don't think it is a requi...

I should amend my OP: when I mention (2), I realize that axioms in logic and math do not need proving, but a moral axiom would need some sort of self-...

Furthermore, it sounds like sentimentalism would have to assume (2) to support the claim that moral claims are only subjective and relative. The senti...