I don't think so no. It can be the case that a code of conduct exists, and that a group or society accept, and live by, a code of conduct. So you could say, "In this quite particular scenario, it is the case that one ought not kick puppies" but that's just an appeal to authority... so, I suppose in some sense i have to concede here but it's not a concession on my position, just on the way it applies. — AmadeusD
If it is the case that we ought not kick puppies, then "we ought not kick puppies" is true. — creativesoul
That's odd. While contradicting yourself out loud you (inaccurately)charge me with a fallacy? — creativesoul
What is the what is going on with respect to the obligation not to kick puppies? — Michael
If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies, and hence "one ought not kick puppies" is true. — creativesoul
What? I didn't charge you with anything. — AmadeusD
And what contradiction, sorry? I'm trying to have a discussion not a pissing match. — AmadeusD
I wouldn't put it like that. — creativesoul
Sometimes, kicking puppies is forbidden. — creativesoul
So I ask again, for the zillionth time: how do I verify or falsify the claim that we ought not kick puppies? — Michael
Sometimes, kicking puppies is forbidden.
— creativesoul
If by this you just mean that someone or something bigger and stronger than me has threatened to punish me if I kick puppies then I understand what you mean. If you mean something else then you're going to have to explain it. — Michael
Fourth.
Here, here, and here were the earlier comments. — Michael
how do I verify or falsify the claim that we ought not kick puppies? — Michael
What if such a claim cannot be verified/falsified by your choice of method? — creativesoul
From whence punishment from external entity/judge? There is no need on my view. I covered that part already. In the first few posts of this particular discussion. It has since went sorely neglected. — creativesoul
Pose a clear question. — creativesoul
This is boring me.
You objected that you could not make sense of what I wrote.
Is your argument that if you cannot find the applicable code of behaviour which clearly and unambiguously forbids kicking puppies that it does not make sense to you or is it that making sense requires being verifiable/falsifiable? Something else?
What I wrote stands. I'm failing to see the relevance in what you're doing. — creativesoul
Which of the metaethical equivalents of mathematical realism and mathematical nominalism is correct? — Michael
When one's argument against moral realism involves claiming to not know what it means when some behaviour is forbidden, then I'm not sure what else I could say to help. Knowing that mush seems to be a necessary prerequisite for doing metaethics. — creativesoul
From whence punishment from external entity/judge? There is no need on my view. I covered that part already. In the first few posts of this particular discussion. It has since went sorely neglected.
— creativesoul
A search for posts by you containing the word "forbidden" this week brings up five results, all of which only assert that something is forbidden without explaining what this means. — Michael
I argued how b was false — creativesoul
An appeal to authority is a fallacy. You charged me with exactly tha — creativesoul
You first claimed that it is not the case that one ought not kick puppies. You then went on and realized that sometimes kicking puppies is forbidden and accused me of 'appealing to authority'. — creativesoul
I'm trying to show you that the concept of something being forbidden only makes sense in the context of some relevant authority telling you to not do something and possibly threatening you with punishment for disobeying. — Michael
Do you think this something we discover, or is it just two ways of talking about numbers? — Banno
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.
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.