I already told you: "interpersonal 'oughts'." — Leontiskos
Like “you ought to listen to my music, it’s really good”? — Michael
Sure, suggestion, advice, command, remonstrance, etc. These are all interpersonal 'oughts' — Leontiskos
I don't think you managed to address it at all. Do you believe that we ought not hold contradictory positions, or do you disagree? — Leontiskos
Doesn’t seem like a moral obligation though... — Michael
Your argument was that contradictions inevitably occur, and therefore they are not bad. Wounds also inevitably occur. Are they bad? Should they be avoided? Should we apply bandage and salve, or leave them to fester? — Leontiskos
Your argument was that contradictions inevitably occur, and therefore they are not bad. Wounds also inevitably occur. Are they bad? Should they be avoided? Should we apply bandage and salve, or leave them to fester? — Leontiskos
You pretend to understand how moral language is used but not what moral language is. That's somewhat disingenuous. — Banno
That's not what was suggested at all, of course. We talk about what might be done, what ought be done, what's the best thing to do, and so on. Whatever word you choose for this behaviour, it would be absurd to deny that you engage in it.anyone who doesn’t accept your “common sense” realism is being disingenuous is itself disingenuous — Michael
We talk about what might be done, what ought be done, what's the best thing to do, and so on. Whatever word you choose for this behaviour, it would be absurd to deny that you engage in it. — Banno
You do not have to call our talk of "what might be done, what ought be done, what's the best thing to do, and so on" moral, if you do not wish to. That's neither here no there. But there are such sentences, and some of them are true. QED.We can do all of this without introducing moral language. — Michael
I am not surprised that you would pat yourself on the back like this, with no account in sight. It occurs constantly. I find your own thoughts on most subjects to be vacuous, and yes, thread-derailing. For example, your post <here> was one of the most unintelligent things I have read on this forum. — Leontiskos
You do not have to call our talk of "what might be done, what ought be done, what's the best thing to do, and so on" moral, if you do not wish to. That's neither here no there. But there are such sentences, and some of them are true. QED. — Banno
You think non-cognitivists and error theorists don’t say that I should brush my teeth or that it’s best if I don’t eat too much sugar? — Michael
I say that a claim like “you ought listen to my music” isn’t a moral claim because I recognise how people use moral language and recognise that they don’t use moral language to describe such a claim.
I accept that a claim like “you ought not hurt puppies” is a moral claim because I recognise how people use moral language and recognise that they use moral language to describe such a claim. But I don’t know what they mean when they describe it as a moral obligation, which is why I’m asking you to explain it. — Michael
Edit: The other problem here is that you have consistently ignored the central question of whether A3 is moral. The evasiveness that you have been displaying becomes particularly rarefied when it comes to this question, which was a central question in the first place. Whenever possible, you say, "That claim is not moral." Yet you can't do this with A3, and so the evasion becomes more pronounced in that case (↪Michael). — Leontiskos
If the first isn’t a moral obligation but the second is then a) what does it mean to say that the second is a moral obligation and b) what evidence or reasoning determines that the first isn’t a moral obligation but the second is? — Michael
If you don’t recognise the difference between a moral obligation and a pragmatic suggestion then you ought try reading some philosophy. — Michael
The lengths to which folk go to avoid admitting this are extraordinary. — 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.