:wink:Thanks for taking the time. — Tom Storm
I don't think I posted to that thread. It seemed to me to be asking why we ought to do what we ought to do.I asked this question myself several years ago. — Michael
The meaning of a word is its use in an utterance.If Banno's view is realism, it is an extremely thin, watered down realism where "truth" is nothing more than how we use the word, regardless of what "truth" actually means. — Apustimelogist
Bishops move diagonally. Sydney is in Australia. You stop on the red light. Any fact determined by convention.Can any realist name any nonmoral proposition, that is neither logically derivable nor in principle empirically verifiable, that you nonetheless are certain is true? — hypericin
I don't think you have understood the phrase "truth-maker". Nor is it a phrase I would use.But his persistence in pretending his proclamations amount to 'truth-making statements' is absurd, — AmadeusD
Oh, yes. I'm well-known hereabouts for my defence of theism.I wonder if Banno is actually a secret theist. — AmadeusD
That's more about your inability to understand an unexpected point of view than about ethics.The cool thing about the position i hold is, is that nothing you or Leontiskos have asserted has any affect on the premise that 'There are no objective moral standards'. — AmadeusD
So you think you can have a preference for foolishness without it being true that "hypericin has a preference for foolishness". Very clever.One can hold values, tastes, preferences, without being obligated that any of these is "true" in an objective sense — hypericin
What do you think? You are responsible for your beliefs.So to be clear, the Nazis were also enacting moral truths? — hypericin
is that it may not be the case that there is no explanation — AmadeusD
Then I will just end the conversation with an analogy. — Leontiskos
So what sort of explanation do you expect from then? — Michael
It seemed to me to be asking why we ought to do what we ought to do. — Banno
So you think you can have a preference for foolishness without it being true that "hypericin has a preference for foolishness". Very clever. — Banno
One is only obligated to the trivial claim that "That I hold this value/taste/preference is true". — hypericin
What do you think? You are responsible for your beliefs. — Banno
You've not at all understood what i actually said - which is that there are further explanations that they choose not to engage.
"One ought not kick puppies for fun"
Why?
"Because it hurts the puppy"
And then there's a further conversation. — AmadeusD
why can't there be brute moral facts? — Michael
All you seem to be saying here is that moral realism is incorrect, and so moral realists are ignorant (in the literal sense). — Michael
What "deep facts"? — Michael
And as I said, that's ethical naturalism. Those kinds of explanations are impossible for ethical non-naturalism. — Michael
I'm aware that is the naturalist position - but my position is that: that is factually wrong. There are further explanations available and to just ignore them doesn't constitute it being impossible. Unsure if i can clarify that further. — AmadeusD
That's fine, but it doesn't constitute a rebuttal of their position. — Michael
Sorry, I don't understand how pointing out a fatal flaw in a claim isn't a rebuttal? Deny facts that exist is surely a fatal flaw in a posiiton? — AmadeusD
Michael says that moral facts cannot be explained in non-moral terms.
AmadeusD says that Michael's claim is fatally flawed because moral facts can be explained in non-moral terms.
AmadeusD says that moral facts can be explained in non-moral terms.
Michael says that AmadeusD's claim is fatally flawed because moral facts cannot be explained in non-moral terms. — Michael
But those deeper facts remain in existence, and do, in fact, support the claim.
This is quite different from your version of the hypothetical exchange. In yours, I offer no explanation of my claim. In my version, I offer a precise and specifically relevant rebuttal to the claim that there are no deeper facts.
So yeah, it's a rebuttal. — AmadeusD
You have claimed that one ought not kick the puppy because it hurts the puppy. The ethical non-naturalist, being a non-naturalist, rejects this connection. You are begging the question and assuming ethical naturalism. — Michael
Again, whether i'm correct or not, this is a rebuttal to ethical naturalism. — AmadeusD
For it to be a rebuttal you must prove that moral facts can be explained in non-moral terms. You must prove that "one ought not kick puppies for fun because it hurts the puppy" is true. — Michael
If it could be proved that I ought eat babies I still wouldn't. — 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.