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

That's odd. While contradicting yourself out loud you (inaccurately)charge me with a fallacy?

If it is the case that we ought not kick puppies, then "we ought not kick puppies" is true. — creativesoul

So I ask again, for the zillionth time: how do I verify or falsify the claim that we ought not kick puppies?

That's odd. While contradicting yourself out loud you (inaccurately)charge me with a fallacy? — creativesoul

What? I didn't charge you with anything.

And what contradiction, sorry? I'm trying to have a discussion not a pissing match.

What is the what is going on with respect to the obligation not to kick puppies? — Michael

I used the phrase to reference reality. There are many such linguistic tools. None of which are capable of effectively capturing everything that has ever happened. So, the phrases "the way things are", "the way things were", "the case at hand", "what's going on", "what went on", "events", etc. are all rightfully employed when the appropriate situations/circumstances need discussed.

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.

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

The bits in bold are the bits I'm trying to make sense of. Are they physical states-of-affairs?

What? I didn't charge you with anything. — AmadeusD

An appeal to authority is a fallacy. You charged me with exactly that.

And what contradiction, sorry? I'm trying to have a discussion not a pissing match. — AmadeusD

Performative contradiction.

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'.

I wouldn't put it like that.

I wouldn't put it like that. — creativesoul

They how would you put it? You're arguing that something is the case but seem unwilling to make sense of it.

What's the confusion? I don't get it.

:yikes:

Sometimes, kicking puppies is forbidden.

Are you saying that you cannot make sense of that? Are you saying that I somehow, in some way, need to make more sense of it? Seems plain and simple to me.

Are you denying it?

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.

So I ask again, for the zillionth time: how do I verify or falsify the claim that we ought not kick puppies? — Michael

That's the very first time you've asked me.

Fourth.

Here, here, and here were the earlier comments.

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

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.

Fourth.

Here, here, and here were the earlier comments. — Michael

Which one has the question?

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?

What if such a claim cannot be verified/falsified by your choice of method? — creativesoul

I don't have a choice of method. I'm asking you how to do it. Are you going to answer?

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" for the past year brings up five results, all of which only assert that something is forbidden without explaining what this means.

Are you saying that someone has threatened to punish us if we kick puppies? If not then what does it mean for kicking puppies to be forbidden?

Pose a clear question.

Pose a clear question. — creativesoul

How do I verify or falsify the claim that I ought not kick puppies?

Check the codes of behaviour.

Check the codes of behaviour. — creativesoul

Where do I find them?

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.

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 much seems to be a necessary prerequisite for doing metaethics.

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

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.

If you try to argue that things can be forbidden even without this then you are quite literally talking nonsense. Hence Anscombe's remark that the word "ought" is simply "a word of mere mesmeric force" with no real substance.

Moral realism is a dogma. It baselessly treats a claim like "you ought not kick puppies" as being something of a truism. Unless you can justify this assertion then it is literally an unjustified assertion.

Which of the metaethical equivalents of mathematical realism and mathematical nominalism is correct? — Michael

Do you think this something we discover, or is it just two ways of talking about numbers? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8110/1-does-not-refer-to-anything/p1.

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

This is coming across to me like "What is wrong with you for questioning whether the emperor is wearing clothes?"

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

You missed the point. You unnecessarily multipled entities again.

Earlier you expressed your cognitive dissonance involving a, b, and c. I argued how b was false, leaving a and c. That alone would have resolved the dissonance if that report was accurate.

I argued how b was false — creativesoul

You didn't. You just asserted it and threw out vague suggestions to "check the codes of behaviour" without explaining where to find these codes of behaviour and where they come from. Do I check the village noticeboard where the Elders have listed their decrees?

An appeal to authority is a fallacy. You charged me with exactly tha — creativesoul

Ahh, i see, I see. Fair enough. I think you have misunderstood - I invented a scenario in which a COC was in place which forbade the kicking puppies, and called the claim that this means "one ought not kick puppies" is, as a result, a state of affairs an appeal to authority, because the 'state of affairs' there involve only the COC existing, including that proscription, and having been assented to. The claim that, because of that rule, it is a moral truth that we ought not kick puppies, is an appeal to authority. The claim rests on the rule being the benchmark for truth.

It wasn't my intention to charge you with an appeal to authority. Sorry if it came off that way. I didn't assume it was your position that a code of conduct supported the claim that it is a state of affairs, rather than a rule. My point was that the existence, content, and assent to the COC does not establish 'one ought not kick puppies' as a state of affairs anymore than than the first commandment establishes that one ought have no God's before the Abrahamic one is a 'state of affairs'.

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

Hmm. I see how it comes across that way, and maybe I just don't know how to express myself adequately yet - but this was not the intention behind what i wrote. Hence, I conceded, in some sense (and i should have said in a sophistical sense) that in that scenario it is a rule that one ought not kick puppies and so, linguistically, one could claim "one ought not kick puppies" but it's not a state of affairs. The state of affairs is "There is a rule to not kick puppies, and to adhere to the rule, one ought not kick puppies" which again, doesn't establish "one ought not kick puppies" in itself, as a state of affairs. Without the rule in place, there is no state of affairs.

I was trying to point out the fallacious nature of the claim that a rule establishes a state of affairs. The states of affairs are the existence, content, and assent to, the rule. That doesn't touch the proposition 'one ought not kick puppies' as a state of affairs in itself. To my mind.

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

It seems im not the only one...

Do you think this something we discover, or is it just two ways of talking about numbers? — Banno

Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics

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.

I believe that the above is false. I am not a mathematical realist, but I still believe in mathematical truths.

Similarly, one can accept that there are moral truths but not accept that moral truths are "independent of us and our language, thought, and practices". One can believe that moral truths are invented, not discovered.

There is simply more to metaethics than just accepting that some moral sentences are true.