That's what I thought, and what I was talking about. When you're not making a moral assessment, but just an assessment about something like ice cream flavors, you don't judge others as wrong just because they disagree with you. — Pfhorrest

Do you agree that moral claims cannot justify themselves to the extent that they attempt to ground themselves on the basis of anything outside of contingent normative practices? — Joshs

I would consider other people's assessments incorrect if and only if they are different from mine. — SophistiCat

The point is that you don’t do that for all assessments about all things — Pfhorrest

But whether you think that its wrongness is objective/universal, rather than just a matter of opinion, is a part of how you relate to it.

I don't like strawberries. But I understand that liking strawberries or not is just a matter of opinion; I don't think anybody is incorrect in their assessment of strawberries just because they like them while I don't. But if someone asserts that your friend being beaten and robbed was perfectly fine and not wrong at all, you wouldn't just take that like you would take a disagreement in food tastes, right? — Pfhorrest

You would think their assessment of the morality of that situation is incorrect, not just different from yours, no? — Pfhorrest

Give me an example of what it could mean to hold someone morally responsible without a commitment to moral objectivism. — Joshs

More specifically , give me an example of what it would mean to hold someone morally accountable if we follow Gergen’s perspective:

is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy? — Joshs

Can we hold someone morally accountable if we believe that they acted with the best and most noble intentions , and that their ‘failing’ was not one of bad intent but rather of a limitation in their worldview that they couldn’t have been expected to recognize? This is Gergen’s perspective and one I agree with. Do you agree with it? — Joshs

Could you elaborate on why it is a strained comparison? The point I am trying to make is that in order to assess moral blame one must have a justification for correctness that goes beyond mere local consensus.That is , one must believe local norma are rooted in something more universal. — Joshs

I really want to know how YOU make use of moral valuation in your own life to assess blame. Give me an example of a moral claim that you have made recently concerning some issue of significance and how you ground that claim. That will give us something concrete to go on in the discussion. — Joshs

Umm.... Gattier problems do not seem to suggest that coming to believe the truth by sheer luck is incompatible with knowing. For example, I believe that Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system and I believe this only because I was lucky enough to be taught that in school. — TheHedoMinimalist

A platitude in epistemology is that coming to believe the truth by sheer luck is incompatible with knowing. — IEP

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that sort of view being articulated before. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, but the issue here is how such notions as responsibility and agency are to be understood from a social constructionist perspective. — Joshs

By contrast , social constructionism abandons the notion of correctness as conformity to empirical objectivity. — Joshs

A useful comparison would be in the realm of philosophy of science. — Joshs

I don't deny this, and the use of probabilities in applied science is well known even in schools. They cover scenarios where events happen in uncontrolled conditions, but they still use Laws which I understood to be formulated on a deterministic basis.... which is why the senior scientists that I have heard lecturing default to a deterministic viewpoint, even if they acknowledge the experimental results show multiple outcomes for the factors they are monitoring. — Gary Enfield

Constructivism claims that all assertions of supposed facts are in actuality just social constructs, ways of thinking about things put forth merely in an attempt to shape the behavior of other people to some end, in effect reducing all purportedly factual claims to normative ones. — Pfhorrest

I was beginning to get worried that this subject, which is a fundamental underpinning to most philosophical debates, would not be taken seriously. — Gary Enfield

The Laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated through the use of traditional mathematics that provide only one specific outcome for any precise starting point/cause. — Gary Enfield

Yet in recent years younger scientists have tried to argue that true randomness does exist in the world due to the findings of Quantum Mechanics. — Gary Enfield

Yes, I agree, it would not be a result of any scientific value but I find it interesting at least to see if my prejudices and assumptions are correct. This is to say that I'm expecting that more than 90% of people attracted by philosophy are men. — Raul

As I said, if you want and can delete it go ahead. — Raul

This could trigger a good discussion on: are man more attracted to philosophy than woman, the other way around? — Raul

My assumption is that temporality "is" something, that it exists as somehow instantiated in substance, not an empty, null set concept, and hence not any more "circular" than matter. — Enrique

All definitions are tautologously circular — Enrique

my definition's strong point is that it is maximally generalized — Enrique

Time: systems primarily sculpted towards the role of coordinating systems that are divergent enough to be deficient in self-coordination. — Enrique

Name calling isn't helpful. — Book273

Sweden:  1:942
Finland: 1:8734
Norway:  1:9835
Denmark: 1:3050

USA:    1:804
Canada: 1:2031

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look. — Book273

I am pretty certain we're dealing with someone with some kind of mental illness. — Echarmion

But more interestingly, why was it called Parler rather than Parlour? — Banno

I see people using incel language and the like (e.g. calling women as "females"). — deusidex

Good stuff. — ChatteringMonkey

Don't healthy immune systems attack and kill invading viruses? — Roger Gregoire

For the most part, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread the virus, ...they attack and kill it. — Roger Gregoire

No offense SophistiCat, but the purpose of the analogies is to put a rational perspective on this whole situation. Right now, the general public is being fed misinformation in the form of "fear mongering" which is only making a bad situation much, much worse. — Roger Gregoire

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus — Roger Gregoire

I know, I know… your first thought after reading this title is “Wow Roger, now you’ve really lost your mind!”. But humor me a bit and take a look at this analogy first — Roger Gregoire

We fail to recognize that intentionally holding the healthy population (those with strong immune systems) on this planet from an infection means that the infection will grow and mutate unabated.

Government experts are quick to reject those that say we should allow the healthy cars to speed up and run free (i.e., implement “strategic herd immunity”) as being misinformed quacks — Roger Gregoire

They don't read the same to me, Chester was quippy, counterpunch is an essay writer. — fdrake

Where can I read up on the idea that they are controversial? Do you mean controversial in that it's a bad thought experiment? Or controversial in the sense of they are being discussed? — DoppyTheElv

The teletransporting / copy-beam thought experiment shows that it is unclear what the objective solution is, not that there is none.
Both the beaming and my thought experiment show the same thing: physics has an explanatory gap with personal identity => physicalism is incomplete. — SolarWind

Well, it’s possible for one to simply fail to see the connection between the premises and how they necessarily lead to the conclusion. Sometimes, seeing that connection may just give them reason to reject one of the premises of the argument but sometimes someone may reasonably just accept the conclusion. — TheHedoMinimalist

The problem with the moral argument is that seeing the connection between P1 and P2 implies that P2 can only be defended by reasons that assume C. — TheHedoMinimalist

But do all syllogism have this problem to an equal extent? My whole point is that the moral argument is especially vulnerable to these conflicts and thus it should be regarded as inferior to other theistic argument. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think the original argument can be put easier with clones. — DoppyTheElv

When you go to the toilet, how can you say you are the same person afterwards as before? — SolarWind

You simply compare the set {A*,B,C,...,X,Y,Z} with the set {A,B,C,...,X,Y,Z*}, where the star indicates which life you would live in the corresponding world. — SolarWind

Conflicted — jamalrob

There is something about this argument that makes it especially vulnerable to this attack. If you try attacking other popular arguments like this, then you will probably have no luck. — TheHedoMinimalist

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

P1: Everything that isn’t infinite must have a cause

P2: The Universe isn’t infinite

C: Therefore, the universe must have a cause

Let’s say someone accepts P2 because they reject the existence of actual infinities and they point to various thought experiments to illuminate their intuitions. P1 does not conflict with the reasons that they have for accepting P2 and neither premise of the argument implies that the other premise is less likely to be true than the conclusion that the argument is trying to provide evidence for. — TheHedoMinimalist