You seem to use ‘tautology’ synonymously with ‘necessary’ byw. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

That may be the case. I tend to think necessity is grammatical.

What if philosophers tend to say too much ? Trying to define wrong or true ? What if that's like defining a chess bishop beyond its role in the game ? "Is he Catholic or Episcopalian or what ?" What does 'up' mean ? What is it that rains when it's raining ?

I suspect I was right w/ my original atoms-and-void comment. You want an Impossible Object to make things Actually Wrong ? Or....you would like to think the moral realist needs one ? I see moral realism as at least potentially trivial. There are norms. Surprise surprise. — Pie

I just want you to convey your meaning as I have. If you asked my meaning for the word ‘car’ and I gave you ‘automobile’ it would be analytically true, but if you wanted me to give you a more empirical conveyance, then I would need to give you something like ‘a machine humans use for transportation’ or something.

What if philosophers tend to say too much ? Trying to define wrong or true ? — Pie

I need to understand the meaning of a term in order to make sense of a statement using it, don’t you? I appreciate the problem of defining moral terms because they seem to have special importance (they are used as if they do). Philosophers reveal our utter uncertainties and presuppositions. They reveal to us the many cracks in the foundation we require to even attempt to make sense of this place. And yet their questions must either be satisfied or we must resort to delusion to sustain our comfort. Don’t fear disillusionment—embrace it.

(This was poetic rather than logical, btw)

Don’t fear disillusionment—embrace it. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

That's what I might tell you. There's nothing behind the mask. There's nothing hidden.

Do you understand/agree that at least one version of moral realism is boringly true ?

Philosophers reveal our utter uncertainties and presuppositions. They reveal to us the many cracks in the foundation we require to even attempt to make sense of this place. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I agree. Of course. And water is wet, sir.

That's what I might tell you. There's nothing behind the mask. There's nothing hidden. — Pie

Are you just unable to convey your meaning? If so, that’s fine.

Do you understand/agree that at least one version of moral realism is boringly true ? — Pie

Depends on what you mean by truth.

And what normative/moral terms mean on a realist construal.

The meaning is boringly clear. 'Murder is wrong' is a fact about the world, a fact about the norms of people in that world.

Depends on what you mean by truth. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I said 'true' not 'truth.' There is almost nothing to be said about truth. Its grammar is absolute and minimal.

The meaning is boringly clear. 'Murder is a wrong' is a fact about the world, a fact about norms — Pie

Facts imply evidence based. Could you substantiate?

Do you want me to prove that the sky is blue ? I am not trying to justify the norm that murder is wrong but merely pointing it out. 'Murder is proscribed.' Does that help ? This is different than 'Timmy is saddened by murders.' One statement is about a community, what it does not tolerate or endorse. The other is about a single person.

Is it not you who seek something deeper here ?

Are you saying that murder is wrong by definition or wrong by an established standard? Then your meaning is just an abidance of said standard, or by definition? But you are a realist, right? It has to be cashed out empirically to be substantiated, doesn’t it? Realism is a thesis in ontology, right?

Do you want me to prove that the sky is blue ? — Pie

Im a realist with regard to the general color of the sky in the daytime. Im not a realist with regard to some stance independent goodness or badness cashed out in spooky metaphysics.

It has to be cashed out empirically to be substantiated, doesn’t it? Realism is a thesis in ontology, right? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Looks like I caught my fish. The reals on the bus go round and round.

Do you think promises are less real than electrons ? Than snowflakes ? Are inferences less real than mustaches ?

cashed out in spooky metaphysics. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What spooky metaphysics is that ? The fact that people in this familiar world of ours proscribe murder ?

Consider that it may only be our mutual obedience to conceptual and inferential norms that makes this conversation possible. I also wonder why you'd be ashamed to embrace a spooky metaphysics. Autonomy perhaps ? Is that spooky ? Conforming to reason ? Wanting justifications for claims ?

Do you think promises are less real than electrons ? Than snowflakes ? Are inferences less real than mustaches ? — Pie

Promises are stance dependent

Electrons are empirical

Snowflakes are empirical

Inferences are stance dependent

Mustaches are empirical

And ? Which are real ? What's your stance on this issue ? And why can't I be empirical about promises ? Isn't that what courts are for ?

Is it your stance that only stance-independent items should be counted as real ?

It's as if you hope a physicist will find Wrongness in a bubble chamber one day. And, if he can't...there is no sin, just like the mountains told Francis Wolcott.

Someone should justify all this obsession with justification.

Could you reproduce my question? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

If you think I've misunderstood your question just say so and tell me what you think I've got wrong. I'm not doing an exam.

And ? Which are real ? — Pie

Exactly. I can't see where people get the idea that the products of human societies are somehow unreal. On the one hand we have idealists telling us nothing but the products of human minds is real, on the other moral anti-realists telling us that everything except the product of human minds is real!

I can't see where people get the idea that the products of human societies are somehow unreal. — Isaac

:up:

On the one hand we have idealists telling us nothing but the products of human minds is real, on the other moral anti-realists telling us that everything except the product of human minds is real! — Isaac

I think this generalizes pretty well too, into something like a quasi-mystical phenomenology versus crude nihilistic 'scientism' (as seen here, I suspect.)

I think this generalizes pretty well too, into something like a quasi-mystical phenomenology versus crude nihilistic 'scientism' (as seen here, I suspect.) — Pie

Yes, indeed. One of the limitations of scientism (among many) is that the proponent's outlook is necessarily limited to those scientific models that they are aware of (and understand!). Most often (for some reason) these tend to be some extremely complex aspects of quantum physics or cosmology...

The 'science' of human beings (speculative and young as it is) is rarely in the playbook. Although I'd still object to it on other grounds, I feel the hard edges of scientism would be much reduced if the 'science' they were 'istic' about was a little more expansive in scope.

For example, would you say that the holocaust was bad? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

No. The Shoah was evil.

If yes, are you saying that it was bad because the things that happened there go against your desires?

No. The fascists systematic mass murder was against "the desires" (Spinoza's conatus) of their victims & the survivors as well as further dehumanized themselves as co-conspirators & perpetrators.

Or, the desires of those afflicted?

Yes. See above.

Was it bad independent from any desires?

If by "desire" you mean preference, taste, attachment, lust, greed or the like, then I say yes. If, however, you're referring to fundamental, or intrinsic, 'drive to persist in one's being' (Spinoza's conatus), then I say no – nothing "morally bad" is "independent" of increasing diminishment or causing destruction of 'the drive to persist in one's being' (i.e. gratuitous suffering).

And ? Which are real ? What's your stance on this issue ? And why can't I be empirical about promises ? Isn't that what courts are for ?

Is it your stance that only stance-independent items should be counted as real ? — Pie

Depends on what you mean by ‘real.’ I believe the common meaning would be something like ‘actually existing rather than imagined’ but there are many different meanings. I would use a similar meaning using the term generally speaking. I would describe a promise using ‘genuine’ if attempting to portray authenticity — but thats me.

Im happy to give you my stance and hear your criticisms regarding stance independent realism, after we settle what your meaning is when using normative/ moral terms stance independently. Are you not able to convey the meaning? I’ll accept that as well.

If you think I've misunderstood your question just say so and tell me what you think I've got wrong. I'm not doing an exam. — Isaac

If you can’t reproduce your interlocutors question, then it is foolish to think that you have answered it.

I think we agree, then. I can’t imagine what stance independent badness with regards to suffering would be. And by adding the qualifier ‘(gratuitous) suffering’ seems to highlight the necessity of an agent to judge whether or not sufficient meaning or purpose can be derived from a particular case of suffering. Although, im sure from the perspective of the Nazi, there was indeed sufficient meaning and purpose to justify such suffering. Or else they wouldn’t have done so. I would like to think that we could reason them out from such a belief using premises based on their own values and principles, but I must concede that such a belief be fanciful, indeed. The lack of information that stands likely now unattainable forms an unbreachable void obfuscating such logic.

Although, im sure from the perspective of the Nazi, there was indeed sufficient meaning and purpose to justify such suffering. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I think conspiratorial rationalizations are never "sufficient ... to justify suffering" and mass murder. :brow:

If you can’t reproduce your interlocutors question, then it is foolish to think that you have answered it. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wouldn't. I'm not taking part is some condescending test.