I think I might have already mentioned once or twice that my interest here was no more than to show that there are moral truths. — Banno
How odd. These are not mutually exclusive.We want to know if moral truths are expressions of individual attitudes, or if they describe conventions of social behaviour, or if they report on facts about the world that obtain even if everyone were to believe otherwise. — Michael
We want to know whether or not moral truths are reducible to natural phenomena. — Michael
When others argue against moral realism they are arguing against their (3b), not your (3). Your (3) also allows for their (3a).
So you're just talking past each other. — Michael
Of course. Are you expecting mere philosophical considerations will decide what you ought to do? They might help you phrase the issues, but they will no more solve all your moral quandaries than they will tell you the value of the gravitational constant. — Banno
Are you expecting honesty? — unenlightened
In any case, meta-ethics has an effect on ethics. In fact we often argue about ethics via meta-ethics nowadays. — Leontiskos
You are assuming that (3a) is coherent, but when presented with the incoherencies of (3a) — Leontiskos
I don't think you have presented any incoherencies. — Michael
The notion that the consensus has moral weight and the votes have none is incoherent. — Leontiskos
Are you committed to the proposition that, on the version of moral subjectivism you are examining, the consensus has moral weight but the votes have none? — Leontiskos
Do you just fling insults when you've got nothing better to say? — hypericin
Which previous post? There are so many.why don't you tell me what was wrong with my previous post? — hypericin
For others it is incoherent because in being a response to moral issues it pretends to tell us what we ought to do, and yet it only tells us what most people do. — Banno
where "It" isYes, it is a metaethical claim, not an ethical one. — hypericin
the account claimingThe virtue of this account is that it fully explains our moral notions, without need of some ontological category. — hypericin
and the story of the monkey.On this account, our moral beliefs and intuitions are an expression of this cooperative system. To ask, "but what if they are *wrong*?", independently of the system, is to reintroduce moral realism, which this account leaves no room for. — hypericin
The naturalistic fallacy is a response to ethical naturalism, how does it even apply to moral anti-realism, or subjective realism? — hypericin
Cheers. You'll be sending me the hemlock, then?I think you're a rude troll that isn't a fraction as clever or knowledgeable as you pretend. Kindly "piss off". — hypericin
What I am saying is that there are certain behaviours that society has deemed acceptable and certain behaviours that society has deemed unacceptable. According to some moral subjectivists when we talk about morality we are talking about these socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. The sentence "murder is immoral" is true iff society deems murder unacceptable because "murder is immoral" just means "murder is deemed socially unacceptable."
This may be factually incorrect (e.g. if Moore's open argument is sound), but that doesn't make it incoherent. It's an internally consistent theory even if it mistakes the meaning of moral sentences.
And on a similar vein, the same is true for the subjectivists who claim that "murder is immoral" is true (for me) if I disapprove of murder because "murder is immoral" just means "I disapprove of murder". It's internally consistent even if factually incorrect. — Michael
(↪Moliere, hence "faith", especially in some authority, is morally questionable.) — Banno
These are the considerations that lead to virtue ethics, to working on oneself rather than grand moral schemes. — Banno
My problem with this is that morality is a normative affair. If someone is making purely descriptive claims, then they are not engaged in, or committing themselves to, any kind of morality. — Leontiskos
If someone claims that morality is reducible to descriptive facts, then they are explaining away morality. — Leontiskos
Kindly "piss off". — hypericin
Oops, I somehow misread that as "all moral claims are true". — hypericin
Great. You think it's "chimerical". Wow. Everyone take note, Leontiskos thinks moral subjectivism is chimerical. — hypericin
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.