The philosophical one is. Having not resolved anything hehe. — AmadeusD
In this thread I'd say we see a large number of failed attempts to establish moral anti-realism, and a large number of failed attempts to overthrow moral realism. — Leontiskos
Your quote/s from Bob don't touch what i've said. — AmadeusD
If you don't think moral anti-realism lost the day in this thread, then you simply don't understand the OP or the purpose of this thread. — Leontiskos
I got the feeling this wasn't on the menu, for this interlocutor. I have a feeling moral realists are necessarily unable to bridge the gap we're genuinely looking to traverse.
I think your toes are much stickier than you realize.
f someone thinks imposing tastes is justifiable, then in my estimation the conversation is at an end, and they have reduced their own position to absurdity.
You think imposing tastes is justifiable (when "[You] care about it enough to impose it on other people"). Hence, the conversation is at an end.
If someone thinks imposing tastes is justifiable, then in my estimation the conversation is at an end, and they have reduced their own position to absurdity. — Leontiskos
I see. So, for you, anyone who isn’t a moral realism is thereby absurd, irrational, and stupid...this seems like you have straw manned your opponent’s position(s) with a false dilemma. — Bob Ross
Your argument seems to be, "Moral realism is false, therefore I can do whatever the heck I want! If moral realism is false, then I'll impose my tastes whenever I please!"
So sure, on that account you can impose your tastes, or contradict yourself with impunity, or send millions of Jews to the gas chambers.
Everything is fair game! I admit I wasn't prepared for the doubling-down on sociopathy. I was sort of hoping for more than that.
But the notion that your view is in some way rational is surely problematic, and you did admit this in your own way
In this post (
↪Bob Ross
) you attempt to give four steps that would precede coercion in matters of taste. Regarding those, I would invite you to ask yourself whether <one ought not have false beliefs>, <one ought to have consistent beliefs>, etc. Logic and reasoning is inherently moral, and the things that we reason about have an inherent objective quality. Your rebuke about "charity" and "hate" is a moral rebuke (
↪Bob Ross
). The ideas that we ought to seek truth, or be consistent, or mean what we say, are all moral claims
I have never encountered someone who believes it is rationally justifiable to impose tastes. — Leontiskos
The vast majority I have ever talk to or heard of have held that preferences can be imposed on other people. — Bob Ross
why do you enforce and care about the moral facts?. Because you simply like it—not because there is a fact of the matter — Bob Ross
But this is true of yourself as well — Bob Ross
This question isn't a piggy-back, its totally askance from the thread - Are you using the word 'impose' here to include 'encourage', or is it more definite? — AmadeusD
↪AmadeusD I'll repeat the simple point that I am not here attempting anything like a coherent, complete theory of ethics, but simply pointing out that there are true moral statements.
Those who have disagreed have either claimed that it is false that one ought not kick puppies for fun, or engaged in the special pleading that despite common usage it is neither true nor false.
Neither reply is tenable. — Banno
I know where I stand on some moral questions — Tom Storm
How can that be made coherent? — Banno
Again, moral realism is simply the view that there are true moral statements. Are you sure you reject this? — Banno
I guess the same way I justify aesthetic taste. — Tom Storm
Yep. Another way to say this is that there is broad intersubjective agreement as to what is true....there’s broad intersubjective agreement about many matters based on a shared human experience — Tom Storm
Good. Now if you are a moral realist, you would say that "we should not cause suffering" is true. If you reject moral realism, you somehow have to maintain that we should not cause suffering, and yet deny that "we should not cause suffering" is true.I am happy with a foundational principle such as, we should not cause suffering... — Tom Storm
Gets complex, doesn't it. It's hard to have a foundational principle that is not true. — Banno
How you justify that belief is over to you, and irrelevant to whether you are a moral realist or not. — Banno
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.