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. — creativesoul
A company is a thing, and is not physical. So is a promise, and a mortgage, and a marriage — Banno
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. — creativesoul
He used the word 'verify'.
I don't think he's equivocating the two the way you are — AmadeusD
I took it as implied that the same comments he made about verification apply also to justification. — Michael
Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position. — Michael
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
If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. — creativesoul
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
How do we 'justify' stating the rules? — creativesoul
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
Premise 2 is stating the rules. — creativesoul
But why the need for rules here? Kicking puppies is wrong in and of itself. — creativesoul
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
then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs. — creativesoul
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
...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
Right, so you're arguing for moral relativism. I'm okay with that. — Michael
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
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
I know what they both mean. — 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.