How are moral facts discovered? — bert1
Also, of they contradict ones own values, how does one choose what to do? — bert1
They do not hold that tastes can be imposed on other people, and that is what you have consistently held.
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
You're obviously begging the question.
Leontiskos, I never doubted that for a second, what I am saying is that the ‘what [that]...flows from something objective’ doesn’t entail nor imply that you should want to enforce or impose them on other people (which flows from subjectivity). So, why are you warranted in imposing that taste on other people?No, because what I "want" flows from my "subjectivity," and what I am bound by (morality) flows from something that is objective
If there is a speed limit of 55 mph that I am bound to obey, then I cannot do whatever I want. Suppose you repudiate the speed law. I conclude, "You can drive as fast as you want!" You respond that you have certain subjective inclinations that tend to limit your speed to 55 mph, and that, after all, we are both in the same boat with regard to a speed limit. But this is patently false, for we are not in the same situation at all. I can expand if you disagree.
Your point is presumably that either I could also choose to repudiate the speed limit, or else that I am lying about my belief that the speed limit binds me. If I am lying then we are in the same boat, but of course I am not lying. I could choose to repudiate the speed limit, but I have not done so, and therefore we are not in the same boat.
Then, positively, if I saw someone imposing his ice cream taste, I would deem him irrational. It wouldn't matter at all if he really cares about that ice cream flavor. I would still deem him irrational
Namely, if I saw someone imposing something like an ice cream taste, that would be irrational. You say that you are willing to impose things that are like ice cream tastes, and therefore I deem you irrational.
What exactly does it require? And how are you not being incoherent with respect to axiology?Imposition requires more than that.
I suspect that you know this. You know it is irrational to impose ice cream tastes, even if one cares about them a great deal. And you know that if X is not imposable, and Y is like X, then Y is also not imposable.
I do appreciate these long and detailed posts of yours, but if I tried to engage them in detail I would soon run short on time. I cannot responsibly enter into such long-form discussions at this point. This seems to have been a difficulty throughout: you have much more time than I do, and that discrepancy becomes problematic.
I will say, though, that the central problem is that you mistake states of affairs with physical reality, and Michael has addressed this in detail in the other thread.
Of course if you assert an ontological position which denies the possibility of normative realities then normative realities will be excluded from your ontology.
But as I have noted, beginning with totalizing, abstract, categorical systems is just a poor way to do philosophy, or to think in general. If you are not able to consider individual propositions independently of your a priori system, then you have walled yourself off from new data, information, and insight.
The closest anyone has got is Banno's weirdo move of just claiming 'brute fact' without anything whatsoever to establish that claim — AmadeusD
You're not following. A chess claim is true, but not because it follows from an arbitrary system. — Leontiskos
And without the taxonomical system that makes the apple sentence seem obvious to us, it is no more comprehensible than, "Bloofas are common in ariondus." Your notion of a "system" is arbitrary, and it is supporting your question-begging. — Leontiskos
Your definition is an arbitrary assertion that flies in the face of actual usage. A verbal bolus pulled straight out of your ass, no better than if I saidOh, I gave my definition of a moral judgment — Leontiskos
You intend to assert that your moral claims are system-bound, but you are unable to understand that your intention is actually supra-systematic. — Leontiskos
Arguendo, why can't the same hold of morality? Again, your non-parity continues to struggle. — Leontiskos
One could attempt to answer the question, "Why are electrons negatively charged?," but the attempt is only worthwhile if the interlocutor accepts that, in practice, there is a limit to explanation. Once it is recognized that the interlocutor will not admit this (and is not therefore not being serious), one will not attempt an answer. — Leontiskos
Why on earth would I waste time on a philosophical account of truth on someone who can't even stick to the right dictionary definition?In any case, it's nowhere near a philosophical account of truth. — Leontiskos
:lol: :rofl: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
Its therefore probably not a kind of realism that is problematic for an anti-realist. — Apustimelogist
Its you realists that struggle, that are throw up your hands and say "whelp, its a brute fact, what else can I say! Explanation's gotta stop somewhere!". This is an anti-scientific, anti-philosophical attitude. — hypericin
and by extension seek to mark ethical statements as not truth-apt; as being mere opinion or taste or some such, and hence (somewhat inconsistently) as being neither true nor false. — Banno
Why on earth would I waste time on a philosophical account of truth... — hypericin
I would respectfully ask that you wait and respond when you do have time, because I appreciate responses with substance over quick responses. — Bob Ross
It's either that or infinitism.
Brute facts seem more reasonable to me than an infinite regress. — Michael
How are moral facts discovered? — bert1
I doubt that there could be a general answer to this question, any more than there might be a general answer for when, say, a scientific investigation does not match the expected result. Is it a fault of the experiment? A mistake in the calculations? Is there something not understood in the theory? Or does the theory need major modification? Finding the answer is not easy.Also, of they contradict ones own values, how does one choose what to do? — bert1
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. — Banno
If moral facts are brute facts then there is no explanation. — Michael
The thing is, there are areas of research pointing to there being explanations beyond mere brute fact. See Jon Haidt's The Rightous Mind. There is value in understanding one's tendencies to moral judgement in order to deal with those tendencies skillfully. — wonderer1
If moral facts are brute facts then there is no explanation. — Michael
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.