Do you agree? — wonderer1
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
No. And I'm really beginning to doubt you truly understand the distinction between normative and descriptive, or an ethical and metaethical theory. — hypericin
You asked me whether my theory was descriptive or normative, and I very clearly answered that it is descriptive. Then you demand that it contain normative claims. What sense does that make? To describe things like "ought" without making ought-claims is not to deny that "ought" is normative. — hypericin
I personally believe that one should follow their conscience. But this 'should' has no place in a descriptive moral theory. That "one should follow their conscience" is a moral claim like any other. — hypericin
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
There is no contradiction between holding a metaethical theory describing what ethics is, while holding normative views on what one ought do. — hypericin
Both may reside comfortably in the same brain. And here they do not contradict one another. — hypericin
I would say not that one should listen to their conscience... — hypericin
I personally believe that one should follow their conscience. — hypericin
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
Why should one thing I believe be accounted for by another? — hypericin
I admit that this is an apparent contradiction... — hypericin
A better wording would be something along the lines, "I would phrase the theory not that one should listen to their conscience, but that one does". — hypericin
...due to your taking the two quotes out of context. — hypericin
What remains is that there are conversations about what we ought to do, and that these conversations include true statements. The lengths to which folk go to avoid admitting this are extraordinary. — Banno
You are the one claiming that they are different, not me. — Leontiskos
But you also vacillate on things like A3 — 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
both in the post I was responding to and the post you responded with, you are are preoccupied with rhetorical-pejorative terms, such as "moral failure," "evil," etc. (and this is a little bit ironic given your allusion to Zen).
People shouldn't contradict themselves or make intellectual mistakes. They do happen, and then we correct them (because we know they are bad). "One swallow does not make a summer." But those who contradict themselves with abandon and without qualms, or assert and publish what they know to be false, are intellectually dishonest and intellectually depraved. They have made a habit out of bad intellectual acts, and have hence become unreasonable and untrustworthy in matters of the intellect. I don't really care whether we call this a moral failure. I don't think most people have any precise idea what they mean when they use that term, "moral." — Leontiskos
what we do and the way we are is ultimately the result of factors beyond our control, whether that be determinism, chance, or luck, and because of this agents are never morally responsible in the sense needed to justify certain kinds of desert-based judgments, attitudes, or treatments—such as resentment, indignation, moral anger, backward-looking blame, and retributive punishment.” “In the basic form of desert, someone who has done wrong for bad reasons deserves to be blamed and perhaps punished just because he has done wrong for those reasons, and someone who has performed a morally exemplary action for good reasons deserves credit, praise, and perhaps reward just because she has performed that action for those reasons (Feinberg 1970; Pereboom 2001, 2014; Scanlon 2013). This backward-looking sense is closely linked with the reactive attitudes of indignation, moral resentment, and guilt, and on the positive side, with gratitude (Strawson 1962); arguably because these attitudes presuppose that their targets are morally responsible in the basic desert sense.” (Caruso 2018)
Sigh. — hypericin
This feels like a narrow account of subjectivism that few would endorse.
In my view, people ultimately make moral judgements and decisions according to their own values and moral sense. These values and this sensibility are in turn informed by enculturation and group-think, but also by biologically based moral instincts (innate senses of fairness and justice, empathy), as well as individual experiences and preferences. This is "subjectivism" as none of these are objective features of the world (right?), but seems poorly captured by "if everyone were to say so". — hypericin
it, and in my opinion my recent posts to ↪hypericin have saddled him squarely with the contradiction at hand. — Leontiskos
Lol, another victory lap after a series of senseless posts. You are a classic time waster, and you don't know what the hell you you are talking about. — hypericin
:rofl:(I only request that you do not edit these recent posts and falsify the record.) — Leontiskos
What exactly is wrong with my approach? — Michael
All I am saying is that this seems inconsistent with how moral language is actually used. That strikes me as a justified descriptive claim. Perhaps you want to say that moral language isn’t actually used correctly? — Michael
It's purely defensive or eristic and not inquisitive. It looks more like fly-swatting or contradicting than philosophy. — Leontiskos
And as far as I'm concerned, to reject a definition without providing an alternative is bad faith argumentation. It's, "Effort for thee, but not for me." — Leontiskos
Which of these are moral utterances? Where should we draw the arbitrary line? — Leontiskos
Proof by contradiction is a valid argumentative response. — Michael
I’m not the one claiming that there are moral facts. — Michael
"That's not moral and I refuse to say what I mean by 'moral'," is not a proof by contradiction, it's just sophistry. — Leontiskos
You are precisely the one claiming there are moral facts. — Leontiskos
I am the one claiming there are binding normative propositions. — Leontiskos
Dude, I'm not here for eristic. The only philosophical thread I published is an anti-eristic thread. If you're looking to argue for the sake of argument, you'll need to find someone else to do it with. — Leontiskos
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
:gasp: :rofl: :lol: — hypericin
One could of course ridicule such a person for their irrationality and self-contradiction, or respond to their angry outbursts which occur as a result of their self-apparent irrationality. I do not find this to be necessary in this case. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.