I have argued for the controversial conclusion from extremely uncontroversial premises. — Bartricks
suckered in two of the more high level posters — DingoJones
I was hoping that he would at least explain what he means by saying that Reason is a sentient (if not sapient) subject; but even there, disappointingly, nothing was forthcoming. — Janus
I think they don't agree with my conclusion because they are not aware of my argument and/or they think that that there is better evidence that the conclusion is false than that it is true, for most contemporary moral philosophers seem to think that the Euthyphro dispatches it. — Bartricks
I think most moral philosophers would agree that if something is morally valuable, its moral value is not constitutively determined by our valuings. — Bartricks
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued. — Bartricks
It's not a matter of opinion as to what's reasonable otherwise there could be no basis for reasonable discussion. — Janus
Well that's a weak argument — Bartricks
its first premise is garbled. — Bartricks
Note, you need to say that if morality is YOUR mental dispositions, otherwise the second bit simply isn't true and the premise is false. — Bartricks
My argument, by contrast, is also valid but both of its premises are true. — Bartricks
Again, for the umpteenth time, if they were, then if you valued raping someone necessarily it would be good for you to rape them. — Bartricks
Right. So if most moral philosophers think that Euthyphro dispatches it (not that I agree at all with your assessment there), then it must be the case that despite both you and {all of moral philosophers} having possession of exactly the same evidence (you've advanced no previously unknown empirical data). They have reached, using nothing but their rational thought, a conclusion which you think is wrong. This proves unequivocally that it is possible for your epistemic peers (and I'm generously putting you in the same camp as all other moral philosophers here), in possession of the same material facts can nonetheless apply their reasoning faculties and reach the wrong conclusion. — Isaac
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.