Something like "the computer algorithm inside my head has caused me to speak the phrase 'I am not a p-zombie'"? — Michael
Exactly. Zombies by definition behave as we do, but they cannot adopt attitudes towards propositions, and so do not have beliefs.
This thread is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of philosophical zombies. — Banno
What does “p-consider” mean? — Michael
I’m not sure that counts as belief. Belief seems to me to be a conscious activity. Machines can record and analyze information but they don’t believe anything. — Michael
Then the P-zombie argument falls flat because it is unbelievable that something could behave identically externally without that extra thing on the inside. The argument hinges on not being able to tell. — noAxioms
1. “I consider myself to be a p-zombie” is false because you are a p-zombie and so don’t believe anything. — Michael
I consider myself to be a p-zombie. — noAxioms
One ought not kick puppies
: I don’t see how this is incompatible with deontology, although certainly incompatible with Kantianism — Bob Ross
There’s a difference between violating someone’s rights (which requires active participation therein) and letting someone’s rights get violated (which is an inactive, passive, allowing of it to happen). In the latter, one is not morally blameworthy; whereas in the former they are. — Bob Ross
What problems can you construct for deontology? — Bob Ross
It isn’t that unnatural, and that’s why “The One’s Who Walk Away from Omelas” is such a good, quick read. Enslaving 1% of the population would increase the well-being of the 99% (if we presuppose specifically utilitarianism), wouldn’t it? Etc. — Bob Ross
Nope. Seems like we shouldn’t violate that child’s rights to me. — Bob Ross
Dude, I'm not here for eristic. The only philosophical thread I published is an anti-eristic thread. — Leontiskos
:gasp: :rofl: :lol:I was under the impression that you cared to resolve your moral self-contradiction. — Leontiskos
Are you just here to evangelise? — Michael
:rofl:(I only request that you do not edit these recent posts and falsify the record.) — Leontiskos
it, and in my opinion my recent posts to ↪hypericin have saddled him squarely with the contradiction at hand. — Leontiskos
(The theory you hold denies normative truths and yet you "personally" affirm normative truths.) — Leontiskos
a) no moral sentence is truth-apt (non-cognitivism)
c) no moral sentence is true (error theory)
e) no moral sentence is true if nobody believes so (non-objectivism)
f) some moral sentence is true even if nobody believes so (robust realism) — Michael
There is a contradiction if they follow Hume in his is-ought distinction, for in that case a non-normative metaethical theory will not account for a normative ethical theory. — Leontiskos
I admit that this is an apparent contradiction, due to your taking the two quotes out of context. as well as some honestly poor wording on my part. The first quote was a response to:Do you not admit that this is an apparent contradiction? — Leontiskos
Is your subjective conscience theory intended to be normative? — Leontiskos
Just so you know, normative/non-normative does not map to ethics/meta-ethics. It's a conflation that pops up occasionally, but this is the first time in this thread. — Leontiskos
My concern is that you purport to provide a non-normative theory and then begin flirting with normativity, — Leontiskos
You simultaneously hold that one should follow their conscience, while at the same time considering yourself a non-normative subjectivist who is propounding a non-normative theory. — Leontiskos
Do you really say that 'ought' is a non-normative term? — Leontiskos
If you think we should listen to our conscience, then your theory of conscience is normative, and it is a "moral theory" — Leontiskos
But do you see how you are toeing the line between normativity and non-normativity, which I have complained about several times throughout this thread? — Leontiskos
Should we act according to our moral sensibility or not? Should we listen to our conscience or not? — Leontiskos
You say that a subjective conscience morality is normative, but that anti-realist theories (including subjectivism) seldom if ever intend to be normative. Is your subjective conscience theory intended to be normative? — Leontiskos
I would say that, by the very substance of anti-realist metaethics, obligations aren't obligatory [...] If the anti-realist theory intends to be merely descriptive, then it is denying the existence of true obligations and substituting some faux placeholder. — Leontiskos
This thread is fast becoming inane. — Banno
I would say that, by the very substance of anti-realist metaethics, obligations aren't obligatory. If the anti-realist theory intends to be normative, then this makes it incoherent. If the anti-realist theory intends to be merely descriptive, then it is denying the existence of true obligations and substituting some faux placeholder. — Leontiskos
Is it this idea? — Leontiskos
I'm working on being kind to fools. It's not easy. — Banno
This discussion is on meta-ethics, not descriptive ethics, and your post seems to be discussing the latter. — Michael
"Society said so, therefore I ought to obey," is a false statement. — Leontiskos
Valid and coherent, but it erroneously divorces morality from oughtness, as noted above. Society saying something does not intrinsically obligate anyone to obey. — Leontiskos
Well, you did make a series of silly mistakes. — Banno
No one here is being as escalating or trollish as you are. — Leontiskos
↪hypericin I find myself constantly lowering my expectation of what you understand of philosophy. — Banno
You'll be sending me the hemlock, then? — Banno