You'd think that we'd simply want to peg what things really are, and not be biased against simple facts. — Terrapin Station
It is completely clear that Hume's is a theory built on certain presuppositions and a model. That is, given the model, then if this, then that. — tim wood
Anyway, you see an error or have disagreement...im just wondering why this particular error is strange to you? — DingoJones
Why on earth would we have no complaint? I think I speak for all the relativists who've posted here in saying that we do not want to be murdered. The Lord wants to murder us, we do not want to be murdered. What is there not to get about that? — Isaac
Are you voluntarily trying to come across as stupid?
It would be possible to have a good discussion about this sort of stuff where the discussion isn't solely fueled by straw men and playing stupid. — Terrapin Station
Is that about right?
— tim wood
You really should read the responses from the relativists on this thread (ROTT). If you did, you wouldn't ask such absurd questions. — ChrisH
It is completely clear that Hume's is a theory built on certain presuppositions and a model. That is, given the model, then if this, then that.
— tim wood
All the good ones do that, to be sure, and we shouldn’t chastise them for wishing the integrity of their respective philosophies be maintained. Both Hume and Kant reminded the reader to stay within the theory in order to get the most out of it, and if the reader was sufficiently qualified to rebuke it....have at it.
Both even when so far as to say the only way to rebuke either theory was to change the definitions or rearrange the system itself. Egos at work, both of ‘em. — Mww
Of course you don't want to be murdered, but who besides you cares, — tim wood
Why should they care? — tim wood
if you're in the castle, your bad luck. You got nothing else, if you're a relativist. Am I wrong? — tim wood
No, I've got nothing. You reckon you've got a better chance? You seriously think you've got a chance reciting Kant to a murderous aristocrat? — Isaac
You-all relativists apparently would choke before you might acknowledge it wrong, just plain wrong. — tim wood
I think, whether or not the are conscious of it or not, the rope the relativists can not let go off, is a question of source. — Rank Amateur
it depends on a pretty thorough explication of "passion" though. — tim wood
any difficulty in comprehending, understanding, or applying that thought must be attributed to the reader — tim wood
hen it should be easy as pie for you to present something - — tim wood
Like you, I tried to show on some moral questions there would be a near universal view. The only relativinist answer to this is an amazing coincidence — Rank Amateur
We're explained to you many times that the fact that moral stances are preference-based doesn't imply that one doesn't have preferences--that's pretty obvious, isn't it? They wouldn't be preferences otherwise.
If you're strictly focusing on "reasons that might persuade someone else," how in the world are you arriving at a notion that just in case something is an extramental fact and can be supported with non-personal reason(s), then other people have to be persuaded by it? You could only think something like that if you've been living in a bubble all your life. — Terrapin Station
Would you accept the addition that they fail to acknowledge that once reason has been applied, then the product of that reason is a product of reason, not and no longer a mere "passion."
Does passion have anything to do with it? Sure, why not - it depends on a pretty thorough explication of "passion" though.
Maybe passion like milk, eggs, flour, sugar, yeast (and some other yummy ingredients). Correctly mixed and baked and iced and you have cake. From the ingredients, but no longer just the ingredients. — tim wood
Morality is codified rules of behaviour. Code is language.
— creativesoul
(1) that would amount to ignoring a significant portion of the phenomena that people typically characterize as morality, moral stances, etc.,
(2) it either ignores or gets wrong what meaning is/how meaning works,
and
(3) it ignores that someone feeling one way or the other about interpersonal behavior--assessments of permissibility, etc. is a unique phenomenon, contra for example behaving in a way that doesn't upset the apple cart in relation to other persons' behavior precipitated by their feelings about interpersonal behavior. In other words, there's an important difference between Joe feeling that it's wrong for him as a 40 year-old to have sex with eager 13 year-olds and Joe behaving in accordance with the prohibition of such sex because of the social repercussions of it should he engage in that activity and be found out. — Terrapin Station
The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason. — Mww
To say that some moral propositions are apodeictic is not to say that the opposite is impossible of thought or action, but it is to say that the truth they express is certain. Not equivocal, Not a matter of mere opinion. Not a product of passion. — tim wood
It is as near a fact as I can think of, that on more then a handful of moral choices, nearly every human conscience on the planet would evaluate it the same. That is difficult to reconcile without allowing for some degree of objective morality on some issues. — Rank Amateur
I cannot help your lack of understanding...Some folk here know what I'm talking about. It's a reading comprehension thing, you might not understand. — creativesoul
If the best you can manage is just to say that every counter-argument to your Delphic declarations is either a red-herring, a non-sequitur or the result of a failure in understanding then you might as well not bother writing anything. This is a philosophy discussion forum, not a podium from which to pronounce to your followers. Pathetic. — Isaac
Philosophy discussions include calling out fallacious reasoning when and where it happens. — creativesoul
The best I can do is call it out. — creativesoul
An astute reader will notice the sheer lack of valid rebuttal coming from folks like you. — creativesoul
Do you have a valid counterargument? Do you have a valid argument? — creativesoul
Shut up and learn. — creativesoul
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.