If, like above, you "do not feel the need to [justify the claim] that we ought not kick puppies" then your assertion is, quite literally, unjustified, and hence a dogma. Dogmas are irrational, and so your position is irrational. — Michael

So what evidence – whether empirical or rational – supports your assertion that there are non physical things? — Michael

These are all irrelevant questions. Relations are not physical. Intent is not physical. Truth is not physical.

All of these things and others are existentially dependent upon physical things, but do not consist of only physical things. I'm that sort of physicalist, I suppose, but I'm not married to stuff that is that far beyond the practical matter at hand.

I do not require omniscience from others either. Do you satisfy your own criticisms/criterion about what counts as dogma and being irrational?

Just curious.

These are all irrelevant questions. — creativesoul

They're not. They're central to metaethics.

You're asserting that some type of ontological entity exists ("moral obligations") but won't justify your assertion. Hence your position is unjustified, and I am justified in rejecting the unjustified. So I reject your moral realism.

A company is a thing, and is not physical. So is a promise, and a mortgage, and a marriage — Banno

A mortgage is a line on a title to a property. A marriage is technically two signatures on a marriage certificate which contains the legally correct wording for that contract, and a company is a set of documents establishing the legal entity of X company. I think what you're trying to assert is exactly what these facts circumvent.

These are all irrelevant questions.
— creativesoul

They're not. They're central to metaethics.

You're asserting that some type of ontological entity exists ("moral obligations") but won't justify your assertion. Hence your position is unjustified, and I am justified in rejecting the unjustified. I reject your moral realism. — Michael

Can you verify those claims? I'd love to see that.

I cannot make you read and/or take into consideration what I've wrote in support of what claims I've made here.

You also seem fixated upon changing what I write into statements I've not made. All of this can be verified.

Can you verify those claims? I'd love to see that. — creativesoul

Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position.

A position that isn't justified is, by definition, unjustified.

Being justified in rejecting the unjustified strikes me as an epistemological truism, perhaps because it too is true by definition.

Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position. — Michael

He used the word 'verify'.

I don't think he's equivocating the two the way you are

He used the word 'verify'.

I don't think he's equivocating the two the way you are — AmadeusD

I did comment here that I was unfairly equating "verify" and "justify" and so re-phrased my question to ask about justification and in his response here he refused to offer such justification and so I took it as implied that the same comments he made about verification apply also to justification.

But if he does have some means to justify the assertion that there are non-physical states of affairs that make the sentence "one ought not kick puppies" true then I'd like to hear them.

I took it as implied that the same comments he made about verification apply also to justification. — Michael

Right right; i followed that element of the exchange; but I anticipate what i've pointed out may be a defense to your charge. If he's, unfortunately, not taking that into account by noting he requires no verification, he may still have an answer as to the justification of the belief.

Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position. — Michael

That was me rejecting your method of justification/verification(criterion for what counts as being justified).

My position is that some utterances of ought are true. Utterances of ought are a kind of claim. All true claims correspond to reality. Some utterances of ought correspond to reality. I set all that out simply already. My position may not be readily amenable to your current view. I suspect your view cannot meet it's own standard of what it takes to be sensible, rational, and justified. I could be wrong, but I doubt that I am in that regard.

I'll circle back to something earlier...

If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs/situation/set of circumstances/the way things were/are...etc. When it is the case that one ought not kick puppies, then it is also the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, and vice versa. Hence, "one ought not kick puppies" is true when those situations 'obtain'(to borrow your language).

My position is that some utterances of ought are true. Utterances of ought are a kind of claim. All true claims correspond to reality. Some utterances of ought correspond to reality. — creativesoul

The same is true of something like "electrons have no mass" and "electrons have mass". One of them is true and the true claim is the one that "corresponds" to reality.

But we have means to verify or falsify each claim. We have means to justify the claim that electrons have mass.

So far you are unwilling to offer even an attempt at justifying the claim that we ought not kick puppies.

If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. — creativesoul

It's not, though. It's the case that a rule exists forbidding it. Not that one ought obey the rule. And in any case, the claim here would be "One ought obey the rule that one ought not kick puppies".

The statement is not a state of affairs. The state of affairs is that "There is a rule to not kick puppies, and X(or Y, or Z) adheres to that rule".

If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs. Hence, "one ought not kick puppies" is true. — creativesoul

Your argument here is:

Premise 1. If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies.
Conclusion. Therefore, "one ought not kick puppies" is true

This is a non sequitur. You're missing a second premise. Your argument should be:

Premise 1. If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies.
Premise 2. Kicking puppies is forbidden
Conclusion. Therefore, "one ought not kick puppies" is true

I'm asking you to justify the second premise.

I, for one, cannot make sense of something being forbidden unless there is some authority figure who has commanded us not to do something.

Fair summation of that part... :smile:

How do we 'justify' stating the rules?

How do we 'justify' stating the rules? — creativesoul

Your question is ambiguous.

If I were to say that it is against the rules to move a pawn backwards in chess then I would justify my assertion by referring you to the FIDE handbook.

If FIDE were to say that it is against the rules to move a pawn backwards in chess then they would justify their assertion by explaining that they are the authority who issued the rule.

But what do we do about moral rules? There's no authority to point to. The very concept of there being rules without a rule-giver is nonsense.

Or are you arguing for cultural relativism where we, as a society, invent (rather than discover) moral rules?

Statements are not states of affairs. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I've never claimed statements are states of affairs.

Premise 2 is stating the rules. You're the one asking me to justify 2. Hence, I asked. I'm not sure why you think it's ambiguous... it's pretty straightforward to me.


You answered. Why do the same standards not apply to codes of conduct? That's what the rules of chess are? If those are good enough for your to justify claims about chess behaviour, then why are the rules governing behaviour in a society/community that forbids kicking puppies not good enough?

I acknowledge that all moality(codes of conduct) are subject to individual particulars. I do not profess moral relativism/subjectivism.

But what do we do about moral rules? There's no authority to point to. The very concept of there being rules without a rule-giver is nonsense. — Michael

Well, yeah. For the most part. Currently the American legal system is just a gloried form of morality. But why the need for rules here? Kicking puppies is wrong in and of itself.

Premise 2 is stating the rules. — creativesoul

So you say. But I say kicking puppies is not forbidden. That's me stating the rules.

Presumably you will say that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. So how do we determine which of us is right? How do we determine what the real rule is?

But why the need for rules here? Kicking puppies is wrong in and of itself. — creativesoul

Because you brought up rules. I'm happy to do away with them.

So what does it mean for something to be wrong? How do we verify or falsify (or justify) the claim that something is wrong? You say kicking puppies is wrong, I said kicking puppies is right. How do we determine which of us is correct?

Statements are not states of affairs. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I've never claimed statements are states of affairs. — creativesoul

Oh.

then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs. — creativesoul

Ok. I cannot escape the thought that you are contradicting yourself.

Let me shift the question: From where does your confidence in that claim come? No need to justify - I want to know where your confidence in it's "truth" comes from?

Well... I think that rules come down to individual particulars. I'm sure you'll agree. Different communities hold different rules/moral belief.

So, with enough qualification it may be the case that kicking puppies is forbidden in some communities but not in others.

I'm okay with that.

Are you claiming that they are not things or that they are physical?

Well... I think that rules come down to individual particulars. I'm sure you'll agree. Different communities hold different rules/moral belief.

So, with enough qualification it may be the case that kicking puppies is forbidden in some communities but not in others.

I'm okay with that. — creativesoul

Right, so you're arguing for moral relativism. I'm okay with that.

...if it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs.
— creativesoul

Let me shift the question: From where does your confidence in that claim come? No need to justify - I want to know where your confidence in it's "truth" comes from? — AmadeusD

I know what they both mean.

Right, so you're arguing for moral relativism. I'm okay with that. — Michael

Not exactly, although like I said... I acknowledge the fact that all codes of conduct are subject to individual particulars.

So what does it mean for something to be wrong? How do we verify or falsify (or justify) the claim that something is wrong? You say kicking puppies is wrong, I said kicking puppies is right. How do we determine which of us is correct? — Michael

There's all sorts of different standards/criterions for what exactly counts as being right/wrong. If we are to set the societal norms aside, then our own respective moral belief would need to be argued for.

Right?

So, how do you justify that kicking puppies is acceptable?

I, for one, cannot make sense of something being forbidden unless there is some authority figure who has commanded us not to do something. — Michael

We agree on that. Where we disagree is on b earlier. There is no need for such a thing, as I said earlier for the reasons I said earlier, all of which you agreed with. Sometimes, all we need is knowledge of causality to justify admonishing certain behaviours and/or encouraging others.

We could be the authority.

that they are physical? — Banno

At base, they are physical objects in the world. How people behave as regards those facts is not.

I know what they both mean. — creativesoul

Ok. Accepted.

But this doesn’t establish a state of affairs as claimed.