Don't take the sentence stating a rule as a single semantic unit and leave it at that. Also include the concepts/ideas that will obviously appear as phrases or words. — TheMadFool
See that the rule itself, as a whole, squares with the the parts, the constiuent concepts/ideas. — TheMadFool
The catch is this isn't new? It's the way it's always been done, not just with rules but every sentence that was, is, will be uttered. I don't get it! — TheMadFool
My idea is that analyzing approximate moral facts in terms of the semantics of their constituent parts and comparing the combinations of constituent parts to the outcomes arrived at by their application could yield a basis for combining said constituent parts into a more accurate approximation of moral facts through trial and error. — ToothyMaw
There are no such things as facts that are approximate. Our opinion based on our differences of observation may be approximations. But facts are never approximate. — god must be atheist
For instance, we know that combining the statement “it is wrong to steal on the sabbath” with “it is okay to steal on days that are not considered holy” yields the normative statement: “it is wrong to steal on the sabbath, but you can steal on some days that aren’t the sabbath”. We need only check this law against the truth of its constituent parts to then decide whether or not it is a valid approximation. If it is consistent, and this one is, then we have a law governing when it is okay to steal - on some days other than the sabbath. Exactly which days it would be okay to steal on would require more testing. — ToothyMaw
All facts are approximate. No facts are absolute - except as we say they are, but then, that's our saying. Of course, many facts are as accurate as they need to be - but still approximate. — tim wood
All facts are contingent. Explanations, even descriptions, of facts are approximate (i.e. fallibilistic).All facts are approximate. — tim wood
Moral facts ...Furthermore, to speak about moral facts, you need to know what they are. Do you have a description of what makes a fact a moral fact? A completely accurate conceptual definition that delineates moral facts from other facts? If yes, I'd like you to show what it is. — god must be atheist
Facts can't be argued. There are no such things as facts that are approximate. Our opinion based on our differences of observation may be approximations. But facts are never approximate. — god must be atheist
Furthermore, to speak about moral facts, you need to know what they are. Do you have a description of what makes a fact a moral fact? A completely accurate conceptual definition that delineates moral facts from other facts? If yes, I'd like you to show what it is. Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing. — god must be atheist
This paragraph begs the question. How do we know the statements reflect morality? There is actually no logical connection between "it is wrong to steal on the Sabbath" and anything wrong stealing on the Sabbath. Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything. — god must be atheist
Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing. — god must be atheist
Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything. — god must be atheist
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.