Michael

Anyone who would vote for someone like Trump and support his policies simply because they're offended by the disdain others have for them deserves suc...

You're being unnecessarily pedantic. I've clarified my meaning.

My use of the phrase "reward and punishment" was meant as an inclusive phrase to account for any desirable or undesirable consequence.

Sure. What I was getting at is that the unconditional phrase "one ought not X" being true is vacuous. It is only meaningfully true if implying somethi...

The complication is that: a) (as I said earlier) when someone claims that one ought not X we understand them as attempting to express an objective fac...

Then perhaps you could explain what obligations "truly" are.

No problem. They rule in Trump's favour and then when a liberal President does the same thing they rule that the facts are different this time and tha...

That's certainly how the Fifth Amendment is worded.

How so?

You're too obsessed with "isms". I'll make this easy for you. Whenever one of us says something like "moral realism hasn't been justified", feel free ...

"although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and...

Yes, that's a central aspect of metaethics; the meaning of moral sentences. What does "ought" even mean? I think the problem is that you have a realis...

Have what?

I don't know of any persuasive argument for any metaethics. They all seem to have insurmountable problems.

Well yes, any persuasive argument for some metaethics (whether realism, error theory, or subjectivism) is going to have to account for why morality wo...

I was agreeing with the claim that if "one ought do X" is true when everyone believes it's true, and if everyone believe that one ought do X, then one...

I'm not saying that my assessment is superior to the Bible's. I'm simply providing you with a coherent account of moral realism that can explain why m...

Okay?

I haven't said this. I have said that one of these is true: a) no moral sentence is truth-apt c) no moral sentence is true e) some moral sentence is t...

I mentioned an example. Morality applies to any species (or rather, person) with the intelligence to understand morality. I certainly don't think this...

It was a discussion from several years ago that I mentioned in passing. I didn't mean to bring it into this discussion.

Even if it were only for humans it doesn't then follow that it's artificial. Humans are biologically distinct from non-humans yet human biology isn't ...

It is if Rawls' (or some other) theory is correct. See distributive justice for a more in-depth account.

Why is it flawed? It could be that one has a moral right to some X but no legal right to it. Case in point: abortion in some countries.

I misunderstood you then. I agree with this.

I was saying that I wouldn't eat babies even if I ought to. I am not (only) motivated by moral considerations. I am (more) motivated by self-interest ...

If Rawls' theory of justice is correct in concluding that "economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the le...

That's a challenge for some theory on normative ethics (e.g. utilitarianism, hedonism, etc.). Moral realism is a theory on meta-ethics and so it doesn...

Because your post was saying that Banno and Leontiskos are making a mistake in asking about obligations, whereas I think obligations are the very thin...

I think it's worth looking at this It would be wrong to assert (1) and begging the question to assert (2) in this case. So I take it that you are asse...

I think we're primarily considering the notion of moral obligation in this discussion. Are there moral obligations and if so then what is their ontolo...

1. Some "one ought not X" is true 2. "one ought not X" doesn't mean "according to some rule-giver Y, one ought not X" 3. There are no obligations with...

Well that’s the issue. I think that (1) is false, I think that some moral sentences are true, and I think that obligations without a rule-giver are no...

Yes, subjectivism covers a variety of different positions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/wi...

That’s where realists and subjectivists disagree. Subjectivism claims that (1) is true, and if (1) is true then the conclusion follows. Subjectivism a...

If the argument is valid and if the premises are true then the conclusion that one ought not harm another iff society says one ought not ham another i...

Is there such a thing as a non-arbitrary rule giver?

Perhaps there are moral truths because there is a rule-giver, e.g. society.

I'll set it out as a syllogism. 1. "one ought not harm another" means "society says one ought not harm another" 2. "society says one ought not harm an...

Not exactly. I'm saying that society says "you ought not kill babies" and then we either obey or we don't, and if we don't then we're doing what socie...

Well, I know lawmakers like to think themselves above the law, but they're not. I think it an indisputable fact that society does in fact dictate rule...

Yes, sometimes some other rule demands us to break the law. And perhaps this other rule is yet another manufactured rule. I can understand the moral s...

When playing chess one ought follow the rules and when going about your everyday life one ought obey the law, even though the rules of chess and the l...

We can choose to abandon society. But rather than chess, perhaps laws a good example. We ought to obey the law, and not just for practical reasons.

The interesting part for me is the very meaning of obligation. I think Anscombe said it best when she described "ought" as "a word of mere mesmeric fo...

Is it open as to whether we ought not move a pawn backwards in chess when playing chess?

See my second paragraph above.

1. X is wrong 2. One ought not X Do these mean the same thing? I don't think that this is necessarily the case. There is a normative component to the ...

What I am saying is that there are certain behaviours that society has deemed acceptable and certain behaviours that society has deemed unacceptable. ...

I don't think you have presented any incoherencies.