Either explain why being morally valuable does not involve being the object of a valusing relation or explain how something objectivery can value something. — Bartricks
An objectivist would counter that there is a relevant sense in which something can be valuable without being the object of a valuing relation; i.e., regardless of whether any subject actually values it. — aletheist
In any case, again, the objectivist denies #1 because actually being valued (by a subject) is not necessary for something to be morally valuable. — aletheist
An objectivist would claim instead that to be valuable is a quality that an object possesses in itself, thus requiring no valuing subject. — aletheist
Rather, as I have stated repeatedly, an objectivist rejects #1 because "being valuable" does not entail "being valued." — aletheist
look up 'Socrates fallacy' — Bartricks
An objectivist would counter that there is a relevant sense in which something can be valuable without being the object of a valuing relation; i.e., regardless of whether any subject actually values it. — aletheist
In any case, again, the objectivist denies #1 because actually being valued (by a subject) is not necessary for something to be morally valuable. — aletheist
If I rejected your argument by simply claiming that I could not make sense of it, what would be your response?Make sense of it. I can't. — Bartricks
I am confident that if I were to construct such an argument, you would immediately reject it by denying one or both of the premisses. As I keep saying, the disagreement is about the premisses, not the arguments.So, construct an argument in which the negation of one of my premises is the conclusion and then let's look at the assumptions you need to make to get to it. — Bartricks
Question begging. — Bartricks
Question begging. — Bartricks
To which I respond ...Question begging. — Bartricks
But just saying something doesn't make it so. — Bartricks
Stop being tedious. — Bartricks
If I rejected your argument by simply claiming that I could not make sense of it, what would be your response? — aletheist
I am confident that if I were to construct such an argument, you would immediately reject it by denying one or both of the premisses. As I keep saying, the disagreement is about the premisses, not the arguments. — aletheist
...to be defined is to be conceived, which is always the primary ground for some immediate and subsequent mediate cognizant ability... — Mww
As to first cognitions....just because a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww
If definitions are required for cognizant ability... He couldn't possibly be doing the same thing.
— creativesoul
I didn’t say definitions were required, you did: — Mww
...a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww
And what I am doing is not easy. If you think it is, just construct a refutation of my argument. — Bartricks
Well, I am aware that some people here seem to be working with different systems of logic. — Bartricks
Yes, I have been collecting modal cars for years. Joke. No, I am not sure exactly what it means, which is why I don't use it. I've getting from its use here that it means something like "I am about to confidently start talking nonsense". Is that right? That's how I interpret it. You, for instance, are about to talk nonsense, I think. — Bartricks
Anyway, do you think the argument is valid? The superman one. Is it, or is it not, valid? — Bartricks
Define 'meaning' first — Bartricks
"if I value something, necessarily it is morally valuable" would be a valid inference from that antecedent — Pfhorrest
For immoral, I mean the opposite of moral and I feel like it would be insulting your intelligence to define what that is. If you do actually want me to define it check the first entry in Webster’s. — username
That is a good point, but if I may be charitable to Bartricks again, I think perhaps what they're aiming for is something along the lines of "if and only if anyone values something, it is morally valuable", and therefore that if he values something, and he is someone, then someone values it, and it is therefore morally valuable. The antecedent "moral values are my values" would have to be changed to "moral values are someone's (such as my) values", and then it would follow necessarily that "if I (or anyone) value something, is is morally valuable". — Pfhorrest
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.