But this weaving together tends to hide the distinction between the scientific principles produced from empirical observations of past events, and the made up shit, which are the principles by which the scientific principles are applied toward producing future events. — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps one might conclude, philosophically, that the future is made up, and that morality is made up. But it cannot be made up by analytic philosophy at least. Rather, as Anscombe declares it is made up by psyche, and the phenomenon is then examined by philosophy. — unenlightened
Do you agree that the made up shit, where it seeps into various forms of manifestation, from myths, religious stories, psychological theories, to physical theories about the nature and origin of life and the universe, has had an important affect on morality? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. And given the phenomena of such made up stuff, one can philosophise. But a philosophy that makes up the phenomena - no that's not philosophy. — unenlightened
Again, this is the whole thrust of Anscombe's piece, that without the divine will the concept of moral oughts has no content and dissolves into an emotional (psychological) appeal, not a theory with any content. Again you are confusing the philosophy of made up shit, with made up shit philosophy. — unenlightened
For what reason does a human being need a "divine will" to judge the made up stuff as good or bad? — Metaphysician Undercover
the biggest problem is that we do nonetheless continue to advise, proscibe, admonish and even punish people on the grounds that they 'ought' to have done otherwise. — Isaac
History.
You don't have to agree with Anscombe, and nor do I. Her argument though is that moral oughts only make sense in that context. Rather like money only makes sense in the context of property. I'm going to stop here though for a bit, and let someone else or no one else take over. — unenlightened
Psychologically, the position is psychopathic, and psychopaths are more and more being voted into power. — unenlightened
how many Trump supporters do you seriously think are moral relativists? — Isaac
Any religious connection is a degenerate religion of convenience. — unenlightened
How do you explain the strong link between support for Trump and the religious right then? — Isaac
The moment you say "don't question this one, — Isaac
I do have a long-winded explanation, but it's way off topic. — unenlightened
if you have a theory that says it is good in certain circumstances to pervert the course of justice, then you have a perverted ethic. You cannot usefully argue with someone who claims that black is white. — unenlightened
If you want to appeal to common humanity to tell the difference — Isaac
we convince ourselves that the innocent can be found guilty, then whatever our opinion of homosexuality, we can find people guilty or innocent regardless. I'm shocked to find that this needs so much labour to explain - the difference seems vast and obvious. — unenlightened
If the innocent (in this hypothetical society) happen to be bad people for whatever reason, then it is good that they are imprisoned. — Isaac
I'll take your umbridge. — Isaac
I simply do not know how to talk to people about innocent bad people. — unenlightened
the guilty homosexual makes no sense, they have done nothing wrong, the law is wrong, not them. — Isaac
But if we convince ourselves that the innocent can be found guilty, then whatever our opinion of homosexuality, we can find people guilty or innocent regardless. — unenlightened
if there is a philosophy that says that wrong law or wrongful conviction are good things in principle if they make things better for other people, then there is nothing more to be said. — unenlightened
Then this hypothetical society's version of Anscombe comes along — Isaac
She says that if the law is wrong then the man is innocent and it is wrong to say that he is not innocent. — unenlightened
Injustice cannot be justified, ever. Disagree all you like, but not on the grounds that she is justifying injustice. — unenlightened
Unlike sexuality, where one cannot choose which side find attractive and no one is harmed if it is not the side they want it to be. — unenlightened
we cannot have that debate about justice v injustice itself, only about whether this law or that behaviour is just or unjust. — unenlightened
How do we establish if the law is indeed wrong? That's the point. — 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.