Michael

If it is you're not going to find it by putting my body under a microscope. At best you can check my birth certificate or passport. Even though it's m...

I have no idea what you're asking here. Dualists claim that humans are a collection of physical and non-physical (mental) stuff. The term "biology" is...

I don't think it's circular. If you asked me what "physiology" describes, the answer is physiology. What does physiology apply to? The question doesn'...

That we are conscious is that consciousness is an aspect of our being, and consciousness is some non-physical supervenient phenomenon (according to th...

Consciousness. I honestly don't know what other kind of answer you're expecting.

Consciousness.

Then "wet" or "well-dressed". Of course, the other issue is that in saying "the answer is the human, which is physiological" you're begging the questi...

When I describe John as being the winner of the race I'm describing John, but being a winner is not the same thing as being John. In fact, nothing abo...

I don't quite understand this. When I describe myself as English the word "English" is an adjective, being used to describe me, but "Englishness" isn'...

That a person is conscious for biological reasons isn’t necessarily that consciousness is physiological. Consciousness may be a non-physical product o...

Well, what's supposed to happen is that if the President tried to do this then the upstanding members of Congress would impeach him and remove him fro...

Yes. I suspect any sentence will be suspended until after his term, and then if it's a federal conviction he will pardon himself. Who knows how the Su...

I'm not sure about a specific moral system, but there's Moore's open-question argument, as explained here: Another issue with ethical naturalism is re...

That is indeed one of my other gripes with ethical non-naturalism. It states what morality is not but seems to lack a substantive positive definition....

See the second section of this where I set out ethical non-naturalism.

I alluded to it on the second page, 7 years ago: I was then explicit about it on the third page, 14 days ago: I think it's just the case that some peo...

They're practical implications of having the belief. I'm asking about the practical implications of that belief being true. If eating meat is immoral ...

Well as I've made clear several times I am considering the implications of ethical non-naturalism. If ethical non-naturalism is true then ... If you w...

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this even cognitivism?

Yes, so as the OP asks, why consider morality when choosing what to do? Why not just consider our desires and pragmatism?

This has nothing to do with moral facts and everything to do with moral beliefs. It is pragmatic to behave in ways that society believes is moral. Thi...

I'm not even sure it makes sense to say that there's a moral reason for being moral. It's like saying that there are pragmatic reasons for being pragm...

An interesting article I've just found: Why Should I Be Moral? Revisited, Kai Nielson (1984)

This would be something like cultural relativism? That isn't the kind of meta-ethics I'm asking about. As per the OP I'm specifically assuming some ki...

Yes, because there are consequences to the breaking the law. Moral beliefs affect people's behaviours. If you believe that it is immoral to eat meat t...

I haven't claimed otherwise.

Assume that it is immoral to eat meat. I eat meat. What are the practical consequences? Assume that it is not immoral to eat meat. I eat meat. What ar...

I didn't say nothing morally bad will happen. I said that nothing non-morally bad will happen.

I didn't mean "bad" in the moral sense. I pre-empted this response and already changed the wording.

I'm not claiming otherwise. The existence of the obligation has no practical implication. If I put my hand in water then it matters if it's boiling. I...

See here: And from the OP: It's certainly not the case that if my belief that eating meat is wrong is true then I won't eat meat and that if my belief...

I'm not asking that.

See here.

Assume that we have some obligation. What is our motivation to obey such an obligation? That's the question asked by the OP. My stance is that if obli...

She told me that she believes it's wrong and struggles with that belief. No, I'm just asking a question of non-naturalists: why be moral? It seems to ...

Then I'll give you a real life example. My friend is a gay Muslim. She genuinely believes in the teachings of Islam – including that homosexuality is ...

Yes, and what if you are absolutely sure that something you enjoy is wrong and something you're disgusted by is right? Would you change your behaviour...

Either eating meat is immoral or it isn't. Some people believe that eating meat is immoral and some people believe that eating meat is not immoral. On...

Like calling Letitia James “peekaboo” which is obviously a stand in for “jigaboo”.

Taken from this.

/uploads/resized/files/kv/uxpmu2zby0xrb3eu.png

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111648588624900975

The SEP article on moral motivation explains it better: I'm asking why there is a motivation to be moral if moral facts have no practical implications...

Moral beliefs certainly have practical implications, in that if people believe that eating meat is immoral then it is likely that less meat is eaten a...

If they're extensionally equivalent then it would be naturalism, not non-naturalism? I'm specifically talking about non-naturalism. I'm not saying tha...

It’s explained in the indictments.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United ...

There are legal and illegal ways to contest an election. Trump's way was illegal.

You said this: How is that a form of a posteriori necessity?

You asserted that if there is God then moral truths are a posteriori necessities but I don't think you explained how this follows. Why can't it be tha...