Michael

Why? No. Unless you want to argue for some form of naturalism where "moral" just means "pragmatic"? In which case see Moore's open question argument.

As a pragmatic matter, yes. But I'm asking about morality.

I don't need to posit something like "moral obligations" to decide how to act. Wants and pragmatic concerns are more than sufficient.

Lots of things we do have nothing to do with ethics. Lots of things we do are amoral. I don't sleep with men, play baseball, or cut my wrists. So when...

I accept that I have a pragmatic reason to not cause myself suffering. But what do you mean by saying that we also have a moral reason to not cause my...

What does any of this have to do with morality and moral obligation?

Others do. It's who they are.

You don't kick a puppy. I kick a puppy. We've both interacted with the world. Your comments don't really say anything relevant at all.

The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump

You get to choose. Either: 1. You cannot mention genitalia for a month, or 2. You must mention genitalia in every comment for a month

That doesn't make sense. There's a possible world where I believe in moral obligation. There's a possible world where I'm a bartender. There's a possi...

I challenge you to not mention genitalia for a month. Or to mention genitalia in every comment for a month.

Some here seem overly fond of appeals to the stone.

Rather than "queer", how about "non-physical" and "non-mathematical"? We can learn of and test physical and mathematical claims; empirically in the ca...

What do you mean by this?

There what is again?

There is harm in the second case. We're just not morally obligated to not harm. This post explains it more clearly.

Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation

My questioning is direct at moral cognitivists, i.e. those who believe that moral propositions are truth-apt. In particular it's directed at ethical n...

I really don't understand what you are saying. Here are two possible worlds: 1. We have a moral obligation to save the human race from extinction 2. W...

Well that's delusional thinking.

I can't make the possibility of any kind of moral obligation believable. That's really what I'm trying to show here. If it's logically possible for th...

So because some member of Biden's family (Hunter?) received money from some foreign company an impeachment inquiry into Presidential corruption is war...

What's written there is so vague that I can't say. e.g.: "After the Chinese company wired the Biden associate account the $3 million, the Biden family...

It simply follows from the fact that "we have a moral obligation to prevent environmental catastrophe and population crash" is not true by definition....

What relevance is that? Is liking or not liking to be around folk the measure of obligation? Well that's just begging the question.

Why? Unless "we have a moral obligation to prevent environmental catastrophe and population crash" is true by definition there is a possible world (wi...

Well, looking at the first thing in the list, all it says is that "the Biden family" received a lot of money from foreign nationals whilst Joe Biden w...

I don't understand what you're saying.

I agree. Moral beliefs are efficacious. But I'm asking about the efficacy of moral facts. Given your comments, I have a more tailored question: what i...

They’re not equivalent. The world being round or the world being flat has practical consequences. There hasn’t been explained what the practical conse...

What does this have to do with the truth or falsity of "one ought not kill babies"?

They don't have anything. At best it's a fishing expedition, at worst they know there's nothing to it and are simply carrying it out as a political st...

There are practical consequences to moral beliefs. There appear to be no practical consequences to moral facts. Imagine two worlds: 1. Homosexuality i...

You mean like this? Some House Republicans Admit There Is No Evidence to Impeach Biden

Yes.

What is the connection between a moral obligation to kill babies and environmental catastrophe? 1. One ought not kill babies, we (truthfully) believe ...

He said in response to being asked what he was hoping to get from an impeachment enquiry. He's feigning real concern.

https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1735002080190803981 Openly admitting it's a political stunt. What high crimes and misdemeanors has Biden committed...

I address that in my post? "Unlike other kinds of beliefs, our moral beliefs being right or wrong has no practical consequences."

Is that a moral claim, or merely a pragmatic claim? I suppose an ethical naturalist could claim that a moral claim is a pragmatic claim, but how would...

I'm not trying to demonstrate that there are no moral facts, only that moral facts don't matter. It is only our moral beliefs that matter. Unlike othe...

In a world without moral beliefs this would happen, but I'm not asking about moral beliefs. I clarified that above: 1. No morality but everyone believ...

It doesn't resolve it because I don't know which side to take. Do I accept that, as a categorical imperative, I ought not kick puppies, or do I accept...

I did make much the same point elsewhere. You just either accept moral realism or you don't. I remain skeptical.

Well, it needs to be reasonably justified at least.

If 80 million people will vote for Trump just because their feelings are hurt by Biden voters then 80 million people are idiots.

That's the very thing being discussed. 1. A categorical imperative is just "one ought not X". 2. A hypothetical imperative is "according to Y, one oug...

If the categorical imperative "one ought not kick puppies" is true then it would be a counterexample to the claim that all imperatives are hypothetica...

That's the exact problem. "One ought not kick puppies" seems meaningfully true and yet the concept of categorical imperatives seems vacuous. I don't k...