And I'm asking you to defend P1 (which in the original is P9). What reasoning or evidence shows that X and Y implies Z? Then the argument is: One ough...
As I said before, this doesn't work: One ought prevent X X is preventable iff Y is possible Therefore one ought do Y. The conclusion doesn't follow. P...
It's in the form "if X and Y then Z". I'm questioning this material implication. If the material implication fails then the premise fails, and if the ...
I'm looking at P9. "If it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices, and gratuitous suffering caused by food producti...
So by this you mean "those men who are called bachelors are called bachelors if and only if they are unmarried men"? Then consider: "that suffering wh...
If gratuitous suffering is preventable by definition then the premise "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and ...
This is confusing. Are you defining "gratuitous suffering" as "morally impermissible suffering" or as "known and preventable (at a reasonable cost) su...
That's not the way the burden of proof works. If you use a premise to make an argument then you must defend that premise; it is not the burden of the ...
And I question your claim that what would cause gratuitous suffering in humans would cause gratuitous suffering in non-human animals. A human doesn't ...
What does cruelty have to do with it? The issue was that it caused gratuitous suffering. So you'd need to show that animals suffered gratuitously by b...
But I wasn't addressing the logical validity of the argument. I was addressing your exchange with @"shmik" on the ambiguity of the argument, specifica...
Shouldn't that read "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is prevented if and only if a vegan diet is adopted"? Furthermore, this ...
The issue is that if one Y refuses to donate then this relieves the others of their obligation to donate because their donations alone cannot save X, ...
Right, so as I said before you're adopting scientific realism. But the internal realist wouldn't adopt scientific realism. They'd adopt something like...
e = mc2 is a formula which describes and predicts observed phenomena. I don't see how that's anything other than an 'empirical statement'. My mistake....
Why did you have to qualify with "from my perspective"? It suggests that things can be true from another perspective or from no perspective at all. Bu...
Yes, you're right. This is what I meant: All Ys ought to save X. X can be saved iff all Ys donate. Therefore all Ys ought to donate. If all of these 1...
That doesn't work. In the example two pilots are present; it's just that one refuses to fly. Is the other obligated to fly alone (despite it being a f...
The moderator icon should be able to differ from the site icon. And as an extension to this, perhaps each user group should be able to have its own cu...
Of course it's valid. Perhaps this variation will make it clearer: I am obligated to donate if my donation will help towards saving X. If you don't al...
No, because if one person doesn't donate then the others donating won't save X, and donating was only obligatory on the premise that it would save X. ...
I'm not sure. Consider: X ought be saved iff X can be saved. X can be saved iff all Ys donate. Therefore all Ys ought to donate. But if one Y doesn't ...
So you're a scientific realist. But that's not the only approach to science. There's instrumentalism and the aforementioned and related model-dependen...
Perhaps to avoid any possible problems regarding other minds and shared experiences that might arise under phenomenalism and to provide an explanation...
He says there isn't such machinery. Yes. Not really. It's a rejection of the metaphysical realist's claim that "the categories and structures of the e...
And the argument begs the question. If "A depends on B" can only be true if A is like B then "an ideal theory depends on a mind-independent world" can...
You said that we can't know what noumena is and that we can't say that A depends on B if we don't know what B is. Therefore, from your own premises, w...
That doesn't follow. That A depends on B is not that an understanding of A gives us an understanding of B. The appearance of Dr Manhattan I see on my ...
Then replace "brain" with "". It could be that whatever is in the vat is nothing like the brain as we understand it and that whatever this thing is in...
This doesn't follow. That an ideal theory is dependent on a mind-independent world is not necessarily that an ideal theory accurately describes it. If...
As I said, you're free to use "reality" that way. But the anti-realist is free to use it another way because the realist doesn't have exclusive rights...
"Realism" and "real" mean different things. The realist is free to tell us what "realism" means but not what "real " means. You might as well say that...
Well, yes. That's the disagreement; over what it means for a tree to be real. But let's go back to the first thing I quoted of you and replace the wor...
If the realist wants "real" to mean "mind-independent" then he can. But that doesn't require the anti-realist to adopt this terminology. The anti-real...
"Real" doesn't mean "mind-independent". My dreams are real dreams but they're not mind-independent dreams. If the real world is what appears and if th...
Because they are real. Yes. The anti-realist says that the real world is what appears, not something else. The disagreement is over the separation of ...
But the anti-realist doesn't say that dream trees or imagined trees are real trees. The anti-realist says that the trees we see when awake are real, b...
They're saying that the world as it appears to us is the real world. They're denying that there's something else to the real world (e.g. mind-independ...
No they're not. They're denying the realist's account of what it means to be real. Anti-realism is not un-realism. The argument is over the mind-indep...
Comments