Michael

I did read what you wrote. You said that "the difference between good and evil ... by becoming acquainted with God's laws." So I'm asking what you wou...

And what if God commands that love is immoral?

No, because as soon as you introduce God all bets are off. Rather than argue against it I'd like to consider the implications. What's the motivation t...

So let's grant that the existence of God entails that there are necessary moral truths. Why be moral? What if God commands that non-believers ought be...

You're blaming Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and Ukraine not willing to give away some of their territory in exchange for "peace"? What about dome...

No it doesn't. See my other argument in that post: 1. A foo is a four-sided triangle 2. Foos are a metaphysical impossibility 3. Therefore triangles, ...

What disastrous things has it done?

How? Until Kripke's Naming and Necessity almost all philosophers thought a posteriori necessity impossible. It was only with his explanation of rigid ...

Then I repeat what I said before: Does necessary a posteriori truth without rigid designators that refer to the same thing make sense? If not then if ...

As is "immoral" according to you.

Then "harmful" rather than "harm".

Step 1 doesn't define consciousness. It defines p-zombies. Here's a different argument: 1. A p-zombie is physically identical to us but has no conscio...

That's because "H2O" and "water" are rigid designators that refer to the same thing. If ethical non-naturalism is true then "immoral" and "harmful" ar...

In one possible world babies suffer if they're murdered and it's immoral to murder babies. In another possible world babies suffer if they're murdered...

If ethical naturalism is true and "immoral" just means something like "harmful" then a world where nothing is immoral is a world where nothing is harm...

Me too. Sandeman imperial reserve.

Not exactly. In one possible world hurting people is wrong because of the consequences. In another possible world hurting people leads to the same con...

Why does it matter if we're wrong? It makes no practical difference to our lives.

If ethical non-naturalism is true then "if X causes physical or emotional injury then X is evil" is not a tautology.

When I'm using the term "harm" I'm using it in the sense of "physical or emotional injury".

It’s defining evil as harm.

That’s ethical naturalism. I’m talking about ethical non-naturalism.

If ethical non-naturalism is true then “immoral” doesn’t mean “harmful”. If “immoral” doesn’t mean “harmful” then “this is harmful” doesn’t mean “this...

See here.

Because you want me to say “moral theory X is right and theory Y is wrong”? I don’t have to say that. I am simply addressing the weaknesses in both th...

Assuming ethical non-naturalism, whatever "immoral" means the sentence "it is not immoral to harm others" is not a logical contradiction, and so "it i...

Line 1 is just a definition. Line 5 doesn't beg the question because it doesn't claim that consciousness is non-physical. It just claims that whatever...

I’m not sure that works. Here are two possible worlds: 1. It is immoral to harm others 2. It is not immoral to harm others Are you saying that if I we...

I’m sorry but I’m not going to read 20 different papers to try to understand your position. Would you mind giving, in you own words, an answer to my q...

See this.

Physical determinism.

That I did it for psychological reasons isn’t that it couldn’t have been done for non-psychological reasons.

Now I don’t know if I should believe this.

What those cases show is that the inclusion of a “congressional power of enforcement” section in an amendment does not entail that the other sections ...

A new amendment requiring 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of States can repeal any Amendment, including the First. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Yo...

No it can't. Congress does not have the power to repeal the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, or the Fifteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has already rule...

True, but the particular case brought before the Colorado Supreme Court was to stop Trump being added to the Republican primary ballot. If Trump is on...

My prediction is that they will stay the ruling beyond Jan 4th because they're too busy to hear it right now, after which they will declare the case m...

One would be assuming incorrectly. See also the Supreme Court's ruling on the 15th Amendment in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) The ...

The 1st and 2nd Amendments don't confer the power to anyone. So why assume that anyone can enforce them?

So am I, and so was the Supreme Court in The Civil Rights Cases. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section...

Neither does the 2nd Amendment. No, it simply extends Congress' power. As I mentioned here, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these amendments ...

In fact, see The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

How do you draw that conclusion? The 13th Amendment establishes two things: first, that slavery is abolished, and second, that Congress shall have pow...

Would you say the same about the Thirteenth Amendment? It mentions "or as an officer of the United States". The court found that the President is an o...

The p-zombie argument is an argument against physicalism. If you're a panpsychist then the p-zombie argument is irrelevant. You already accept the con...

Assuming that knowledge is (at minimum) justified true belief, what is the justification for the belief that no one should torture babies? The same go...

You seem to think that certain bodily behaviours can only be caused by subjective consciousness. Why is that? The body is a physical object. Muscles c...

Biden pardons marijuana use nationwide. That's nice of him.

Well yes, that’s how originalism works, and originalism seems to be one of the most common ways to interpret the constitution.