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? — Michael
There is simply more to metaethics than just accept that some moral sentences are true. — Michael
A few pages back I argued how an external judge was not necessary. — creativesoul
The claim rests on the rule being the benchmark for truth. — AmadeusD
Metaethics is the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice. As such, it counts within its domain a broad range of questions and puzzles, including: Is morality more a matter of taste than truth? Are moral standards culturally relative? Are there moral facts? If there are moral facts, what are their origin and nature? How is it that they set an appropriate standard for our behavior? How might moral facts be related to other facts (about psychology, happiness, human conventions…)? And how do we learn about moral facts, if there are any?
Nah. Sometimes codes are wrong/mistaken. — creativesoul
Seems like the demonstrably provable negative affects/effects stemming from not honoring one's voluntarily obligations(promises) should work just fine in lieu of a rule-giver and/or reward/punishment.
— creativesoul
Sure — Michael
I owe your last reply more consideration than that. :wink: — creativesoul
So moral obligations are pragmatic suggestions? I ought not kick puppies because... they might bite me in retaliation?
I can accept that. But I don't think that's what moral realists mean. — Michael
Yup, when our report of the utterance is qualified enough, we'll be talking about certain communities' codes. Not all. — creativesoul
That's not what I mean either. While you may get bit if you were to kick certain puppies, that's not why you ought not kick them. — creativesoul
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 — Michael
Such things consist - in part at least - of that consists of things that are both physical and nonphysical, hence, I would not put it quite like that... "physical states of affairs". — creativesoul
That's not what I mean either. While you may get bit if you were to kick certain puppies, that's not why you ought not kick them.
— creativesoul
But you just quoted yourself saying "demonstrably provable negative affects/effects stemming from not honoring one's voluntarily obligations(promises) should work just fine in lieu of a rule-giver and/or reward/punishment."
If this had nothing to do with explaining what it means for one to be forbidden from kick puppies then why did you bring it up? — Michael
Well, you were seeking verification. Hence... rules. Rules... are an example of b. — creativesoul
I personally do not feel the need to verify that we ought not kick puppies. I do not need a rule for that. — creativesoul
I personally do not feel the need to verify that we ought not kick puppies. I do not need a rule for that. I could also care less whether or not that particular claim could be verified. — creativesoul
I personally do not feel the need to verify that we ought not kick puppies. I do not need a rule for that. I could also care less whether or not that particular claim could be verified.
— creativesoul
This seems to give up the claim of truth, then. — AmadeusD
Well no. A claim need not be verified in order for it to be true. — creativesoul
It seems your argument is something like if a claim cannot be verified it ought not be believed — creativesoul
Okay, so we're getting somewhere.
Obligations are non-physical states of affairs. As it stands it then seems that a moral realist cannot be a physicalist.
So what evidence – whether empirical or rational – suggests that non-physical states of affairs exist? — Michael
That particular state of affairs consists of both physical and non physical things. — creativesoul
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.