Michael

This would be the B series concept of time that I mentioned in my comment?

I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing.

It makes no sense to say that "there is no first cause" is the first cause.

You misunderstand. Given one of these options: 1. A ? B ? C ? ... 2. ... ? A ? B ? C ? ... 3. ... ? A ? B ? C ? ... ? A ? B ? C ? ... I'm suggesting t...

This is very ambiguous. There is a distance between the base of a mountain and its peak even if we never measure it. And this distance can be less tha...

As I also said in that post: In other words, it could be that "it simply is" the case that causality is infinite.

Although I do agree that a first cause seems to make the most sense. @"180 Proof" referenced a "first number" as a reductio ad absurdum against the cl...

So there are three supposed options: 1. A ? B ? C ? ... 2. ... ? A ? B ? C ? ... 3. ... ? A ? B ? C ? ... ? A ? B ? C ? ... In (4) you say that if (1)...

Uniparty? There's a huge difference between them. One of them is leading to cases like this: Emergency rooms not required to perform life-saving abort...

The secret is to be dead inside.

I was actually joking but as you asked I quickly threw something together. Requires this extension: https://www.tampermonkey.net/ // ==UserScript== //...

Given that knowledge is often defined as justified true belief it then suggests that there's such a thing as unjustified true belief and justified fal...

Related: Trump paid me to find voter fraud. Then he lied after I found 2020 election wasn't stolen.

I have a script that replaces the words "Israel", "Palestine", and "Hamas" with random words. Makes it easy.

This wording is ambiguous. If pleasure is moral and suffering is immoral then a pleasurable outcome will be a moral outcome and a sufferable outcome w...

Whoever said it first had an original thought.

It's not that ethical truths don't affect choices but that ethical truths don't affect the outcome of choices. If I choose to eat meat then the outcom...

Related is Hempel's dilemma: If Hempel's dichotomy is accurate and if no physicalist believes that our current theories amount to a Theory of Everythi...

If the good had a practical affect on our lives then the good could, in principle, be determined empirically, but as Moore says: We just either accept...

Despite what I said here, I tend to use "ought" and "should" slightly differently. I use "ought" when I intend to assert the existence of an obligatio...

Why does it matter if good increases? It's a non-natural property that has no practical affect on us or our lives. Unlike nutrition.

I know. This discussion is intended to show that if theories like Moore's are correct then moral facts don't matter, and so perhaps works as a reducti...

My argument in this discussion is specifically related to the supposed existence of obligations. I have often given examples of "should" claims that d...

So what does "should" mean in this context? It certainly doesn't seem to mean that there is an obligation to behave a certain way, as these sentences ...

Your very question has introduced two different senses of "should", else it would be a contradiction to claim that she both should and shouldn't give ...

As a very simple real life example, plenty of people who have affairs believe that they shouldn't be having an affair. They believe that what they are...

No. In fact he might think that she shouldn't do what he wants her to do because he knows that what he wants her to do is wrong.

The conman is trying to influence her behaviour into giving him what he wants. He isn't trying to influence her behaviour into doing what he thinks sh...

I didn't say that they are incompatible. I am only saying that the one does not necessarily entail the other. In the case of the conman, what he wants...

No they do not. They want her to buy a bridge. They don't think she should.

I disagree, as I keep saying. If I'm a conman trying to sell you a bridge I don't own then I am trying to influence your behaviour into giving me mone...

Well yes, because that's a truism: "ought" and "should" are synonyms. But again I refer you back to what I said here: You accused me (here) of saying ...

Yes. So I refer you back to what I said here: You accused me (here) of saying something that I haven't said (that "we should act in a certain way"). I...

And in this case an "ought" isn't involved as I keep saying. Here are a couple of sentences: 1. I would like it if you made others happy 2. I would li...

That I am trying to influence behaviour isn't that I believe that you have a moral obligation to behave a certain way. When I try to convince you that...

No I don't. You need to stop telling me what I believe.

I know it does. But whether or not kindness and empathy and charity are moral doesn't matter. Kindness and empathy and charity would make the world a ...

No I'm not. I am expressing how I would feel if you were to behave a certain way. I'm not advising you to do something. I'm not telling you to do some...

I think there's been some confusion. I said to Leontiskos that I would like it if he would make others happy. He then accused me of telling him that h...

I'm not sure what you want from me. You're putting words into my mouth and I'm simply explaining that I'm not saying what you accuse me of saying. I'd...

Is it a moral fact? We're discussing moral obligations, not non-moral obligations. I'm not. I'm explaining that if ethical non-naturalism is true then...

That quote of yours does not address mine.

I haven't said "in my opinion you should stop causing suffering". I have only said "I would like it if you would stop causing suffering". These propos...

I haven't acknowledged this. I can acknowledge that the world would be a different, better place if everyone acted with kindness and empathy and chari...

That they should become sober is not an objectively binding moral obligation. It is a pragmatic suggestion, like telling someone that they should brus...

That may be true when you say it but it's not when I say it. When I say "I'd like it if you did this" I am only saying this. To make this clearer, do ...

That strikes me as a contradiction. You ought not eat meat if and only if I would like you to not eat meat? That seems like textbook moral subjectivis...

I'm not arguing that there is no motivation. I'm explaining that I have no motivation to be moral and am asking others why they have it given that the...

Is this premise true? 1. "You should do X" is true iff I'd like it if you did X According to moral realists it's not. According to (some) moral subjec...

I don't say that we should. I only say that I do, and that I'd like it if you did too.