Good luck trying to get through to him. I really mean that. I want him to understand. But we have reached the point of him getting stuck on reoccurring problems. I think that the biggest problem is that he can't see things from within moral relativism or emotivism, or he refuses to do so. His moral absolutist spectacles seem glued on tight.

And note that earlier on he mentioned the possibility of an explanation of morality involving God. I know that he believes in God, and the kind of people who believe in God are known to be dogmatic and rigidly committed to a set of beliefs. Maybe he is fixated on the idea that he simply must reject moral relativism. Moral relativism is bad! Destructive even! It is no different to moral nihilism or amoralism! Everything would be equally acceptable! (Even though it wouldn't be, that's just a really bad misunderstanding). :scream:

For you we'll go very simple. Do you hold that 2+2=4 is absolutely true as a matter of reason? Or true only as a matter of opinion, of psychology, and thus true for some folks and not true for others? — tim wood

What if I do? You can't just pull a switcheroo and conclude that it must be so with morality also. Ethics and maths are two very different things.

How reason? Kant mapped this territory. If I suppose murder at all right, then implicitly I consent to murder. Ultimately as a matter of reason to my own murder. If I qualify that to exclude my own murder, then presumably everyone can make the same exception. In addition there are notions of stealing, and of taking life, equally non-reasonable. And so the argument spins. Is Kant water-tight on this all the way out to the edges and corners? This amounts to the question of whether anything underpins reason. Kant indeed has values. But I think his effort of tailoring the fit of values and reason is more than adequate. — tim wood

The reason I said that the categorical imperative is a joke earlier on in the discussion is because it is merely a conditional about universalism. "Yeah, but if we willed that it became a universal law that"-- Well, let me just stop you there, because I don't. I simply do not form my moral judgements in that way, and your reply of "Well, you should do!" has no force.

I think that Kant's predecessor in Hume was a far greater moral philosopher.

In sum, reason can and does give us absolutes. At the same time reason makes rigorous demands in the expression of those absolutes. Thus, "You shall not kill," correctly seems problematic as over and against the more precise, "You shall not murder." — tim wood

Well no, in sum it does no such thing. But you're free to deceive yourself otherwise.

I sum, I hold the argument against the possibility of moral absolutes as an argument against reason in favour of psychology. Psychology has its uses, but it's not reason nor a substitute for it. — tim wood

Reason is the slave of the passions.

Predictably, you do not pick up on or address the error. You just ignore it, because it is me that is pointing it out, and you seem to think that anything I say is obviously wrong and not worth engaging with.

The error is confusing what we're doing with what would be going on in the hypothetical scenario. We are talking. We are thinking. We are perceiving and conceiving and so on.

That wouldn't be happening in the hypothetical scenario though, would it? There is a subtle connection that you and Noah are making or suggesting which isn't actually logical or warranted. You are both under the idealist illusion. You think that you're saying something logically relevant, but you're actually not.

None of your speaking about speaking actually addresses the point. The point was not about speaking. I spoke of a burger, I didn't speak about speak. That's another finger/moon failure right there. Another de re / de dicto failure.

What properties must a thing have to be "like" a burger?

The idealist will likely say that these properties are experiential in nature, i.e. to have a particular look, a particular smell, a particular taste, etc., and that it doesn't make sense to say that something can have a look, a smell, and a taste when not being perceived.

Presumably you disagree with the idealist's position that a burger's properties are experiential in nature? What properties, then, must a thing have to be "like" a burger (or more simply, to be a burger)? — Michael

Well, yes, to be clear, I certainly didn't mean qualia just because I used the word "like". I don't mean what it looks like, or tastes like, and so on. If that's what I had meant, I would have made that clear.

When I said that the burger is like a burger when it is being perceived, only the burger wouldn't be being perceived, I meant that they have some things in common. Both consist in a bread bun with a cooked meat patty made of a meat such as beef in between them. That's what a burger is. It is an object with properties. It is composed of particles.

Nothing I've just described about the burger would magically change from when it is being perceived to when it isn't being perceived. That's not how the world works. That is a fundamental misunderstanding which involves confusing our perception of the burger with the burger. That's like confusing the mashing of the potato with the potato. Both involve the same logical error of conflating two different things.

It's interesting how we started with mashed potato and ended up with Kant.

By the way, anyone merely making the point that some moral statements are true should recognise that this point will be completely irrelevant to most of us here. I only know of one person in this discussion who would deny that. He is an emotivist. I am not, and neither is Isaac, and obviously neither is anyone on the moral realist side. We're all cognitivists, and we all believe that there are some true moral statements, with the exception of one person.

So please bear that in mind when making lengthy self-congratulatory posts, under the illusion that you're getting somewhere and building a good case against the opposition. Unless the opposition is Terrapin and no one else, you're not getting anywhere.

You are incapable of dialogue, because you exercise no effort in understanding the other opinion. — Rank Amateur

No, you are projecting. But take a break, and when you're capable of being reasonable enough to overcome your psychological issues, I suggest you slowly go back over my reply instead of being a knee-jerk reacting bad pupil.

For some reason you thought I said murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate — Rank Amateur

Because that is what you said. Word for word. Sweet Mary mother of Jesus, does your denialism know no bounds?

And you called that a false equivalence. — Rank Amateur

Understandably so. They are no more the same than chalk and cheese, and it is already known that they are both considered preferences, so if that was your point, then it is a point which lacks logical relevance. You would actually need to take it somewhere logically relevant, otherwise it is not worth even making to begin with. That is why when you make a point like that, you get a response like "And?". I really shouldn't have to explain this.

My point was, and is... — Rank Amateur

I bet you a thousand dollars that whatever you say your point was and is, it has already been dealt with. The only problem here is your problem in understanding what the problem is. It is a meta-problem, and it is really only your problem, but it is also a problem for anyone who is trying to help you see what the problem is, and how it can be resolved. You have blamed me for trying to help you, but the resolution requires the ability to understand the problem and understand how it can be resolved. I cannot just simply give you that ability if you don't have it. It can be hard work, and there's no guarantee of success.

There are somethings that are true
I propose it is true that murder is wrong — Rank Amateur

That's already a problem for Terrapin, because he is a noncognitivist. And I'm guessing it will be a problem for me also, but for a different reason. It will be a problem for me because I go by a moral relativist interpretation of moral truths. But these are really not our problems at all, because you merely assume cognitivism and assume absolutism without warrant. So they're actually your problems.

There are two people, like yourself believe moral judgments are mostly subjective
One says, to me, my moral relative thought is murder is wrong.
The other says, my moral relative thought is murder is fine.

Both tell each other they disagree with the other one.

If you believe there is a possible truth about the moral nature of murder they both
Can not be right. — Rank Amateur

No, the logical fallacy you're committing there is one that has been pointed out before multiple times, and it is that of begging the question. It is begging the question because when you say that both can't be right, what you really mean is that both can't be right in accordance with moral absolutism. But the error in that should be obvious, because a moral relativist obviously doesn't accept moral absolutism.

Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, because in accordance with moral relativism, both can be right. To understand that, you would need to learn about moral relativism and learn about the law of noncontradiction. If you have a proper understanding of both, then you will know that they're compatible, and that there is no contradiction, no violation of that fundamental law of logic.

And if you believe in mostly subjectivity, there is no standard to judge
If wrong. — Rank Amateur

This has been shown to be a non sequitur. There is a standard, and it is subjective. The logical error you are making is once again that of begging the question, because by "standard" you really mean objective standard. You must realise that standards are not necessarily objective, and that it is fallacious to just assume an objective standard in this context.

If it is not right or wrong, it is just different. Like the choice of vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur

It is right or wrong, so the antecedent is false and the consequent is irrelevant. You would be once again begging the question by saying that there is no right and wrong because of how you interpret right and wrong. Moral absolutists do not have copyright privilege to moral terminology. I must have seen that error a hundred times or more.

And the comparison to foodstuffs has already been exposed as misleading, so you should stop doing that unless you actually want to look like a sophist. There is a right and wrong - no one here is denying that. Do not confuse moral relativism for moral nihilism. They are two distinct positions. And nor has anyone denied that moral preference or judgement or whatever you want to call it is of greater significance than preference or judgement or whatever you want to call it about foodstuffs, i.e. "mere" preference.

I have no issue with the moral relativist as long as they acknowledge they lose the right to judge the moral judgments of others. — Rank Amateur

No, you need to understand and acknowledge your errors, including non sequiturs like the above. But I am not a wizard, I can't magically make you understand. I am just in effect your tutor in logic without pay.

If two people are having a debate about whether horses have wings, and the first person says "Horses have wings", and the second person says, "But horses have wings!", and the first person replies, "And?", and then a third person comes along and explains that the second person's reply lacked logical relevance, is it appropriate or reasonable for the second person to refuse to acknowledge that their reply lacks logical relevance, or to change the subject, or to demand a repeat of the explanation when they can easily refer back to it?

I think that the third person is being helpful, and the second person is being wrongheaded.

You make a claim, I challenge you to defend it, you dodge. Rinse repeat, normal interaction with you. Just stop with the tactics please. — Rank Amateur

I identify a logical error in something you've said, I show you the error and explain why it is an error, you deny the error or demand I do the same thing again or try to change the subject. I eventually get fed up and stop trying. Rinse, repeat, normal interaction with you. Just stop with the tactics please.

Refer back to the answer, use your brain. Don't demand that I repeat the answer until I get tired and give up trying to get you to see the error. You are a bad pupil. Try harder, and don't blame your tutor.

Also, you will get the bill in the post.

If I thought any of that was true I would happily admit it. So take one of those, and in a complete though, that shows you actually took a second to understand the point I am making, show my error I will be happy to admit error if you show it. — Rank Amateur

Here's the problem: I am not your tutor in logic. If I am, I demand that you pay me for my time and effort. Especially since you are a pupil who demands that logical errors be shown and explained over and over again, in various different ways, until you finally grasp the error, which you might never actually do, because your psych is clearly interfering.

The irony is that these demands from you are themselves suggestive of a fallacy, namely an argument from repetition, which means that you repeatedly demand a demonstration or explanation that has already been provided, with the hope that your interlocutor just ends up sick and tired and gives up on you as a result.

Just refer to my previous replies, and look up the fallacies which I've identified, and compare them to what you've said, and use your brain. If that doesn't work, then too bad.

And you have yet to actually make a coherent point in opposition. — Rank Amateur

My priority has for some time now been getting you to be honest in this debate. If you made a fuck up, be honest and own up to it. Just say, "You're right, I made a point which lacks relevance. I was preaching to the choir", or just say, "You're right, what I was suggesting was false or misleading". I shouldn't have to press you so damn hard. Your precious ego shouldn't require so much protection. Is your psych really so fragile? My goodness.

Not to speak for S, but I don't know what there would be to say to that. Is anyone disagreeing with it?
— Terrapin Station

That was my answer to s, that he has yet to answer. — Rank Amateur

I think I speak for both myself and Terrapin when I say that we object to your lack of explicit acknowledgement that you made a point which lacks logical relevance. You made a point which preaches to the choir, and does nothing else, except suggest a fallacious false equivalence, whether that was truly your intention or otherwise. Making that equivalence is either careless or deceptive. Either way, you still fucked up, and you still refuse to admit it.

His "And?" never got a proper response. I think that it is pretty clear at this stage that there never was a follow up, or that it is invalid. But you won't admit it. You just want to move on and talk about something else.

Interesting to counter a claim of semantics by making yet another semantic argument. None of that addressed the concept addressed and you know it.

Maybe instead of making up rules for this forum, you should find a debate site, you are very good at it. Or if that falls through Trump may need another press secretary soon, he can use someone who never gives an inch and has no interest in answering questions, is always right, and has an indifferent attitude about the nature of truth. — Rank Amateur

You are extremely predictable. Do you know that? You have chosen to respond with denialism and evasion. Who would've guessed? Well, at least you have now been well and truly exposed.

Yep, freedom of speech clearly does not mean freedom of consequence, whether that is being slapped, arrested, banned, etc.

I don't even think that that's controversial.

Okay, I think I'm pretty good at strategic game playing, so let's try this. I will answer your request, even though my request has priority, but then you either have to answer my request properly and immediately, or you will face exposure as a sophist for deliberately avoiding the relevant issue which I originally raised and which you have yet to deal with properly by either admitting that your point lacked logical relevance or stating what the supposed logical relevance is.

And I am only answering your request in this single reply here, and then it is on you to answer my request, not to continue on this digression of yours. Is that understood?

Here goes:

So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.

We are getting semantic now. — Rank Amateur

Yes, and so what? (That's a rhetorical question - you shouldn't actually answer it unless you want to continue this digression and be exposed). The word "objective" obviously doesn't normally mean "near universal", and this is very easily demonstrated with examples. It wasn't the case that it was objectively true that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system, even when that was nearly universally believed.

So you can take your idiosyncratic and counterproductive semantics and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

Now you must either deal with my request properly and immediately or face exposure as a sophist. Which is it to be? Let me know when you're back from seeing your therapist.

If you decide to do the right thing, then this is what you must properly address:

So if there is no truth value in any relative moral judgment, why make them? It just turns all such judgments to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur

That is exactly my point, they are not equivalent. But if there is no underlying truth in the choice then it is just a preference. I say there is some truth that murder is or is not bad. There is no truth statement beyond mere preference if vanilla is better than chocolate. — Rank Amateur

It isn't "just" a preference. It isn't "mere" preference. That's back to square one again!

Obviously an emotivist like Terrapin already accepts that both are preferences, and that there is no truth to them, so you are not doing anything logically relevant by pointlessly pointing that out. Like some of the others in this discussion, you struggle with logical relevance.

That is why he replied with, "And?".

What else could there be to that pointless point, unless, as suspected, you are suggesting something fallacious beyond a fallacy of irrelevance, like a false equivalence or an appeal to emotion by using loaded language in a superficial attempt to trivialise or smear your opponent? Are emotivists guilty by association with murderers or something? What's your bloody point? It still seems like you're dancing around the truth that you don't have a relevant or valid point. — S

I think that you, Tim, and Vagabond Spectre have been suggesting ad hominems throughout this discussion, but sometimes in a subtle way so that it has a better chance of going undetected. Some of the key fallacious suggestions from you three have been that us moral relativists are trivialising important matters, condoning things like murder or female genital mutilation, treating different moral judgements as not different but equal, being destructive, and thinking like an adolescent. Therefore, we're wrong, even though these suggestions are a steaming pile of bullshit and are nothing more than fallacy-laden propaganda.

Sure, take your time. :up: — Terrapin Station

And maybe stop by your therapist. :lol:

6th dodge, I will be back later take your time for number 7 — Rank Amateur

You are crazy if you think that I'm dodging instead of just holding you to my request which has priority over your request. You haven't explained why your request should have priority. You are the one dodging, and I am the one holding firm, but your psych has reversed this in your mind. You have an interesting psych.

And you have not commented on this yet. — Rank Amateur

Because my request has priority. It relates to something that you said which precedes what it is that I said in reply to you about a tangent. You need to deal with what you said first.

5th dodge — Rank Amateur

My request stems back to something you said on page 20, which you still haven't properly dealt with. You are referring to something different, and which cropped up pages later. My request preceded yours and has priority. You are being unbelievably evasive, and unbelievably making it out as though I am in fact being the one who is being unbelievably evasive. Your psych makes for an interesting case study.

Human nature was first and this is your 4th dodge on the question. — Rank Amateur

No, that's your denial kicking in again. This comment of yours was from page 20:

It just turn all such judgments to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur

I'm still awaiting a concession or a proper explanation from you. And I'm persevering through your many attempts at evasion.

Human nature please? — Rank Amateur

Only after we've sorted out your point that I was originally addressing. I want either a concession from you or proper non-evasive reply.

You need to admit that your point lacked logical relevance or explain what the supposed logical relevance was. I've connected the dots for you out in the open, but you just deny it without actually saying what your point was, except by repeating a point which lacks logical relevance.

Your lack of taking any time to actually understand what people say to you before you argue back is amazing. That is exactly my point, they are not equivalent. But if there is no underlying truth in the choice then it is just a preference. I say there is some truth that murder is or is not bad. There is no truth statement beyond mere preference if vanilla is better than chocolate — Rank Amateur

It isn't "just" a preference. It isn't "mere" preference. That's back to square one again!

Obviously an emotivist like Terrapin already accepts that both are preferences, and that there is no truth to them, so you are not doing anything logically relevant by pointlessly pointing that out. Like some of the others in this discussion, you struggle with logical relevance.

That is why he replied with, "And?".

What else could there be to that pointless point, unless, as suspected, you are suggesting something fallacious beyond a fallacy of irrelevance, like a false equivalence or an appeal to emotion by using loaded language in a superficial attempt to trivialise or smear your opponent? Are emotivists guilty by association with murderers or something? What's your bloody point? It still seems like you're dancing around the truth that you don't have a relevant or valid point.

Instead of this, you have not responded to this yet — Rank Amateur

Yes, I know that you want to wriggle out of my criticism instead of conceding, so you're trying to manipulate me into talking about something else.

Remember, I am more conscious of your psych than you yourself are. And it does you no favours when I expose it. So maybe consider just conceding?

I can just add this to the very long line of direct questions you refuse to answer. Because you have no real interest in ideas you are only concerned with winning an argument. — Rank Amateur

See? There it is again. Denial. No, of course you don't see it. That's the problem. But it is quite amusing from an outside perspective who clocks on to how your psych manifests itself in how you respond to me.

My point should be crystal clear, as it is no doubt crystal clear to others, but you are so in denial that you spin this as a refusal on my part to spell it out for you in the most obvious of ways. Okay, here goes, although I doubt that it will work on you, as you'll likely just respond in one of your usual ways:

I think that your comment suggested a false equivalence. It equated two very clearly different things, namely murder/not murder and vanilla/chocolate. You said that they're "the same". Of course, they're both preferences, according to the view in question, but that's it. That in itself does nothing at all logically (a fallacy of irrelevance) and the additional suggestion (which I'm sure you'll deny, because that's what you do: you deny what you can't cope with confronting) is also fallacious.

Any reasonable person will clearly see that that is either plainly false or highly misleading. It shouldn't even have to be explained to this extent. I think that you're just buying time and trying to avoid having to confront being wrong about something.

As I asked terrapin, Can you briefly say what you understand my point to be, I think we are taking past each other. — Rank Amateur

Don't worry. I know how your psych works better than you do. You are predictable. What would happen is that I'd explain that your comment suggested a false equivalence, and you'd simply deny whatever I said rather than concede, blaming me for misinterpreting your comment. That way, you're right and I'm wrong. That's how it has to be for you, because you can't cope with the alternative prospect.

No my point was what is the origin of this commonality, is it coincidence, evolution, God, something else?

Where does it come from. — Rank Amateur

Well, obviously not God. It's no more God than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.

The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.

And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism, which foolishly goes further and makes the additional claim that the commonality represents an objective standard. Ockham's razor.

That has nothing at all to do with my issue. — Rank Amateur

I don't care if you want to wiggle out of my criticism and talk about something else. This is what I am calling you out for:

"It just turns all such judgements to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate".

They are your own words. You can either concede or foolishly attempt to defend them. Or, you know, just revert to one of your coping mechanisms because you can't handle being wrong about something.

No I obviously do not see the false equivalence- Can you explain it in a complete thought please. — Rank Amateur

So you genuinely believe that my feelings about cheese and onion crisps are just like my feelings about raping babies, in every sense, respect, and degree?

Why on earth would you believe that?

I've addressed it a bunch of times. — Terrapin Station

He's in denial. I'm surprised his other coping mechanism hasn't kicked in yet. You can tell when it has, because he'll close down and go, "Okay, have a nice day!".

I am happy to go down any rabbit hole you want.

I am not sure either you or s even understand the point I am making. And I have yet to see it addressed in a complete thought.

Most of what I am hearing is you are wrong and you don't understand.

I keep asking what I think is a reasonable and logical issue, That either you can not, or will not address reasonably and logically. — Rank Amateur

Your point that I addressed was your false equivalence. But you seem to be in denial that I even addressed your point. What don't you understand about why your point was fallacious?

Your last point didn't even go anywhere logically relevant, as Terrapin picked up on. That's a fallacy called missing the point.

If you're logically incompetent, then what tends to happen is that the discussion becomes about that rather than the wider issue.

In any event, there's not much 'universal' about attitudes to abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, social welfare, health provision etc, etc. Doesn't seem to me to be any evidence of an objectively correct solution to these thorny moral issues. — ChrisH

It seems that way to me too. It's probably because there isn't any. That's why some have resorted to dogmatism, and others try and fail to be logical about it.

I didn't say all, I said some. — Rank Amateur

Universal, near universal, a majority, evenly split, a small minority, one person... Doesn't make any real difference, meta-ethically. To believe otherwise is a moral delusion, a fallacy.

It's frustrating that you can't get folks to follow through on a line of questioning about this stuff, because that could help them understand the other view. It seems almost like they're afraid to "go down the rabbit hole" though. So whenever it looks like they're getting too close to the rabbit hole, they back off. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it is annoying. They just leave it down to others to connect the dots out in the open.

And? — Terrapin Station

Therefore, false equivalence. Cheese and onion flavour crisps, raping babies.

I'm won over by that argument. Aren't you?

Incredulity is not argument, and obviously not very effective on me. I am open to reason if you would care to take a deep breath and actually address the point. — Rank Amateur

I addressed the point. I identified the logical error, namely a false equivalence, and I just added the obligatory satirising of it, but I think that I was a little too late in adding that, so...

So anyway, I prefer cheese and onion flavour crisps and raping babies to ready salted flavour crisps. How about you?

I am not allowed to disagree with that? — Rank Amateur

Sweet Jesus. No one here is crazy enough to equate the two, so you have a fundamental misunderstanding. Big surprise.

I prefer cheese and onion flavour crisps and raping babies to ready salted flavour crisps. How about you?

Yea, I still see a logic flaw, you don't. — Rank Amateur

No, you are quite literally back at square one. You do realise that the following was quoted in the opening post:

"Morality isn't anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behaviour that they consider more significant than etiquette."

And it was also clarified about a million years ago that it is similarly considered more significant than preferences about foodstuffs, yet the same idiotic false equivalence is being repeated.

Look at what I said in my very first reply back on page one:

"There are two problems with this straightaway. Firstly, opinion is no more nothing than evolved thought is nothing. Secondly, your use of "mere" is an example of loaded language and a poor representation of the position that you're supposed to be criticising. A mere opinion makes me think of the opinion that salt and vinegar flavour crisps are better than cheese and onion flavour crisps. This is clearly not what was intended. Your characterisation is uncharitable".

I'm just not seeing why people think objectivism is of any greater pragmatic use. — Isaac

It isn't, and thinking otherwise is a common misperception. One of many that we've seen in this discussion. I try to stamp them out, but sometimes it can be in vain, again, as we've seen.

Perhaps I should come back with a gun. :chin:

Yes, it's almost as if using logic and evidence to get someone to see the truth of some matter doesn't work... Oh well. — Isaac

Damn. If only everyone was more like me...