I'm not interested in defending or rearguing the private language argument here; there is plenty of stuff elsewhere for that. That's why I'm ignoring @S and @Terrapin Station... — Banno
I'm under no obligation to reply to every post here. I want to follow a particular line of thought, and it seems to me that your views are of no help to me. Hence... — Banno
This is not too far form free will, either. If one follows a rule is one acting freely? — Banno
So go look at the Wiki argument on private language. I wrote much of it, anyway. — Banno
This is a neat rendering. The point of behaving ethically is not to say but to show.
But if that's so, how important are moral rules?
Can we Do without them? — Banno
Janus Again I will point out that the conclusion in paragraph two does not follow directly from paragraph one.
Remember that the point at hand was that Morality has no bearing on a non-volitional action. It seems that it does. — Banno
The point is that there can be no unequivocal universal rule that could be used to determine whether or not she is morally responsible, and hence there can be no fact of the matter, analogous to how there can be with empirical propositions. — Janus
And yet she was found negligent. It was found the the fact was she might have avoided the accident. — Banno
Morality gets in the way of doing the right thing. — Banno
I think PWS is a red herring here. The relevant question to me seems to be if we take moral norms as part of the background, how can we ensure that they are necessarily true or false? — fdrake
Why care about them rather than kick them? We can do that now, with them. — Banno
How you gonna do necessity without PWS? What is necessity if not being true in all possible worlds? — Banno
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.