creativesoul

Premise 2 is stating the rules. You're the one asking me to justify 2. Hence, I asked. I'm not sure why you think it's ambiguous... it's pretty straig...

Statements are not states of affairs. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I've never claimed statements are states of affairs.

Fair summation of that part... :smile: How do we 'justify' stating the rules?

That was me rejecting your method of justification/verification(criterion for what counts as being justified). My position is that some utterances of ...

I cannot make you read and/or take into consideration what I've wrote in support of what claims I've made here. You also seem fixated upon changing wh...

Can you verify those claims? I'd love to see that.

These are all irrelevant questions. Relations are not physical. Intent is not physical. Truth is not physical. All of these things and others are exis...

That particular state of affairs consists of both physical and non physical things.

Well no. A claim need not be verified in order for it to be true.

That doesn't follow. It seems your argument is something like if a claim cannot be verified it ought not be believed, or it doesn't make sense, or som...

Well, you were seeking verification. Hence... rules. Rules... are an example of b. At least you're consistent. I personally do not feel the need to ve...

Those expressions reference states of affairs, the case as it was/is, the particular situation/circumstances at the time, etc. Such things consist - i...

That's not what I mean either. While you may get bit if you were to kick certain puppies, that's not why you ought not kick them.

Yup, when our report of the utterance is qualified enough, we'll be talking about certain communities' codes. Not all.

No worries.

Not an argument, but an agreement. That's adequate enough here. This case requires rule giver and/or reward/punishment... an external judge. Granted.

I owe your last reply more consideration than that. :wink:

I'll look...

Nah. Sometimes codes are wrong/mistaken.

You're conflating two separate issues. A few pages back I argued how an external judge was not necessary. You now offer a case where one is. I never a...

You missed the point. You unnecessarily multipled entities again. Earlier you expressed your cognitive dissonance involving a, b, and c. I argued how ...

When one's argument against moral realism involves claiming to not know what it means when some behaviour is forbidden, then I'm not sure what else I ...

This is boring me. You objected that you could not make sense of what I wrote. Is your argument that if you cannot find the applicable code of behavio...

Check the codes of behaviour.

Pose a clear question.

What if such a claim cannot be verified/falsified by your choice of method?

Which one has the question?

From whence punishment from external entity/judge? There is no need on my view. I covered that part already. In the first few posts of this particular...

That's the very first time you've asked me.

What's the confusion? I don't get it. :yikes: Sometimes, kicking puppies is forbidden. Are you saying that you cannot make sense of that? Are you sayi...

I wouldn't put it like that.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy. You charged me with exactly that. Performative contradiction. You first claimed that it is not the case that one ...

I used the phrase to reference reality. There are many such linguistic tools. None of which are capable of effectively capturing everything that has e...

That's odd. While contradicting yourself out loud you (inaccurately)charge me with a fallacy?

As if codes of conduct cannot be considered as an elemental constituent within a state of affairs? As if it is never the case that kicking puppies is ...

Hey my friend. I think perhaps correspondence and coherence combined. I've been mulling over promises... When the direction of fit is such that keepin...

Correspondence is an emergent relation between what is thought and/or believed about what is going on and what is going on. When what is thought about...

Those are good questions.

I find it a bit amusing that you're insisting that I'm not doing metaethics while I'm doing nothing but thinking about morality and ethics as a subjec...

Those could be perplexing considerations if we work from the conventional notions of truth as in using one and one only. Perhaps different sorts of cl...

Well, in my own defense, I was simply working from exactly what you boiled the dissonance down to. Hence, from that I offered... Divorce the utterance...

Divorce the utterance from the label and walk away a free man. "One ought not kick puppies" is both sensible and true. It's definitely sensible, and t...

When person A says to person B "I promise, I'll make sure you have a rose garden on Sunday", then come Monday person B ought have a rose garden. That ...

There's your resolution regarding the dissonance. As an aside, Proust caused a severe case of cognitive dissonance within me after following his logic...

Does it? I mean justificatory regress has to stop somewhere, right? Why not right there?

Need it be 'proven' in order for you to know it?

Ah... sorry, I'm a bit late to the discussion and I did not perform the due diligence of reading enough to know that...

Perhaps dropping the notions of categorical and hypothetical imperatives would help?

Ah I see. So that serves as a clear cut counterexample to the notion that all claims in the form of "One ought not X" imply conditionals.

"One ought not kick puppies." How do your claims quoted above cover that one? Seems perfectly meaningful and true from where I sit despite not needing...