I asked you to show me how it challenges my argument. You then went away and did not do so.

You ducked.

Edit: we can all do this passive aggressive shit. Be interesting.

false. But do so now then. Resist the temptation to say anything about me, and just raise the objection. Let's keep it cool, calm and rational.

an objection to my argument, I stress, not some other position.

all filler, no killer. Once more, raise an objection to my argument.

...raise the objection — Bartricks

Is this the third, or forth time, that I have asked you:

↪Bartricks I'll start again.

morality is made of a god's values and prescriptions
— Bartricks

So what is moral is what god prescribes.

Now, is it moral because god prescribes it, or does god prescribe it because it is moral?

Seems you want to say that it is good because it is proscribed by god. Have I understood you aright?
3 days ago — Banno

yes, that is what the argument i made entails.

although it is 'a god' not God.

Ok, so be precise: you say that things are only good in so far as god proscribes them; that is the case?

what. Is. The. Objection? That is what I am waiting for.
An act is right because the god - Reason - prescribes it. And the objection is?

I have adopted your punctuation. Let's not be distracted.

OK - so an act is good because reason prescribes it.

Can we use that, and avoid the baggage that might go with "god"?

You good with that?

no, they are 'right' If the god - Reason - prescribes them and 'morally good' If she values them.

yes.

Reason says don't get your ethics off the back of a matchbox. — Bartricks

Reason cannot say where to find the basic rules for ethics, simply, because discovering the basic rules for anything is not the job of reason. It is always the job of other, unknown mental faculties to achieve that.

The ambition of (some) moral philosophers to discover the basic rules for ethics through reasoning, is in strict violation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Their approach is provably nonsensical.

I'll pass that, too - looks like another distraction.

just being accurate. Rightness and goodness are different kinds of moral property. One is prescriptive the other evaluative.

...an act is good because reason prescribes it — Banno

It follows, then, that if something is reasonable - decided by reason - then it is good.

IS that right?

no, an act is right if reason prescribes it. I think reasonableness is broader.

for example, advising is not the same as prescribing. If reason advises you to do X, Xing is not necessarily right.

OK, just trying to form the proposition in a way that you accept:

If something is decide by reason, it is right.

How's that?

no. If reason prescribes an act then it is right.

OK - so an act is good because reason prescribes it. — Banno

Reason can only verify that a conclusion necessarily follows from its premise. At some point, the process of chaining back from premise to justifying premise will end in a basic premise.

Reason cannot say anything about that basic premise. Attempting to do so anyway, will simply degenerate in infinite regress, which seems to be the hallmark of metaphysics.

The basic premise for morality is either arbitrary or supplied by other, unknown mental faculties. It is never supplied by reason.

Small steps.

advising, suggesting, prescribing - these are different. A prescription is an imperative or command. When reason commands us to do something her commanding it is its rightness. Thus if reason commands us to do X it is right for us to X.

it's called divine 'command' theory for a reason.

If reason prescribes an act then it is right. — Bartricks

So it is not possible for an act to be both reasonable and wrong.

Yes?

So it is not possible for an act to be both reasonable and wrong. Yes? — Banno

Garbage in, garbage out! ;-)

no, if reason commands us not to do something she is not also advising us to do it.

Sorry - in your terminology,


it is not possible for an act to be both prescribed by reason and also not right.

Yes?