All truths are only such insofar as they are based on inter-subjective agreement; and that goes for both scientific truths and moral truths. So, the universally agreed upon idea that murder, rape, torture and so on is wrong is a truth in the context of the inter-subjective agreement that it is such. individual preference doesn't come into it when it comes to such moral truths, any more than it does with science. The simple-minded demand for empirical evidence in the domain of moral thought is the category error. — Janus
You really should stop mischaracterising those you're debating. No one here is saying that nothing is wrong in the unqualified way that you just said it. I shouldn't have to point out that moral relativists and emotivists are not moral nihilists. We accept that there is right and wrong. — S
He thinks if there's anything bad, it's only because they think so. Do you agree with Terrapin? — tim wood
2+2=4? Mere opinion according to Terrapin. — tim wood
There's no sense of the word "opinion" that I use, or that's in common use, that I would say fits that. You could suggest a definition, though, I guess. — Terrapin Station
The things that are true in human life are the things that all of us (the sensible ones at least) can agree upon. — Janus
I strongly disagree here. It makes no sense to me not to be flexible enough to switch between a group context and an individual context. Wrong for them isn't necessarily wrong for me, and that clearly matters a lot, or wouldn't it matter if I was the only non-racist subject in a large group of subjects? — S
I'm not sure if Tim has used that term but I certainly have. What is your problem with it? It's use (by me at least) just denotes the fact that some kinds of moral relativists want to say to say that moral dispositions are nothing but personal preferences. And of course I haven't anywhere said that they are not also personal preferences; it is trivially true that they are.Remember, "mere" preference? — S
I have you trapped. — S
Agreed. I’ve yet to experience ontological conditionals as anything but complicating, rather than clarifying. I mean...whatever I’m talking about must already be somehow, and must already relate to what I’m talking about....or I wouldn’t have anything to talk about. AAARRRGGGGG!!!!!! — Mww
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.