In your other thread you ask if something like A1 is a moral claim or a pragmatic claim.
...
Why can't it be both? — Leontiskos
In all the theorising in this thread we may lose track of the purpose of ethical thinking: to decide what to do. Ethics has to be about the relation between belief and action. — Banno
So when do we get to the part where you actually explain morality? — Michael
I accept that I have a pragmatic reason to not cause myself suffering. But what do you mean by saying that we also have a moral reason to not cause myself suffering? What does the term "moral" add? And what evidence or reasoning suggests that, in addition to being pragmatic, avoiding suffering is also moral? — Michael
It looks as if you have decided that you cannot act unless you are certain of what to do, and yet you must act and without certainty. So you are stuck. — Banno
Do you agree with me that, ceteris paribus, one ought not cause suffering for themselves? — Leontiskos
If that were so, your presence in this forum seems inexplicable.I don't need to posit something like "moral obligations" to decide how to act. Wants and pragmatic concerns are more than sufficient. — Michael
You don't see the incongruity here?As a pragmatic matter, yes. But I'm asking about morality. — Michael
I don't know what you mean by 'moral', and I don't think you do either. — Leontiskos
But I'm asking about morality. — Michael
You're the one who said that not causing suffering is both pragmatic and moral, so I'm asking you what you mean when you say this. — Michael
Else, getting away from Ross' language, I would say moral anti-realism is the idea that, <There are no moral propositions that are binding on all>, or what I count as the same thing, <There are no normative propositions that are binding on all>. — Leontiskos
But you're the one who objected that something cannot be pragmatic and moral in the first place — Leontiskos
This conversation is well off the rails. — Banno
I'm only saying that "pragmatic" and "moral" don't mean the same thing. — Michael
I think you need to read Simpson's, "Autonomous Morality and the Idea of the Noble." — Leontiskos
You seem to be in a position parallel to Corvus, who denies certainty of the "external world" while interacting with it through the forums. — Banno
I don't think there are non-moral 'oughts'. — Leontiskos
Why introduced a new ontological category of "moral" facts? What purpose do they serve? — Michael
Of course it is. In choosing to play a game you are choosing not to volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Ethics pervades everything you do.Not every action is ethical. Not every choice requires ethical deliberation. My decision to play, or not play, baseball has nothing to do with ethics at all. — Michael
yep.Kant's epistemology was as impossible as his moral theory — Leontiskos
In choosing to play a game you are choosing not to volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Ethics pervades everything you do. — Banno
Seems inconsistent with ordinary language. — Michael
What does choosing not to volunteer to fight in Ukraine have to do with ethics? — Michael
The idea here is that the act involves a moral omission. — Leontiskos
And that needs to be explained, not simply asserted. — Michael
A1. Ceteris paribus, I should not cause suffering for myself
A2. Others are like me
A3. Therefore, ceteris paribus, I should not cause suffering for others — Leontiskos
I think you're just being contentious at this point. You consistently refuse the burden of proof, refuse to give substantive answers, and nitpick everything that is said.
You say A1 is not 'moral' by the mysterious definition you consistently refuse to provide. What about A3? Is that 'moral'? — Leontiskos
I don't know what "moral" means so I can't answer. — Michael
It's pragmatic, sure. So what else is there? — Michael
That's odd, given that you have consistently objected that my claims are non-moral. How do you object on the basis of a concept you do not know? — Leontiskos
You spoke of ordinary language. Is, "Do not needlessly cause others to suffer," moral according to your understanding of ordinary language? — Leontiskos
Again, I don't know what "moral" means. — 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.