. Are you trying to say that in some form the agreement supersedes the legal requirement for a mortgage? — AmadeusD
Take care with "that's it" A contract to build a house usually leads to there being a house, which does not exist only in someone's mind. — Banno
Since we can build on the simple fact of our agreement. We can discourage puppy kicking, try to avoid the temptation provided by puppies, or introduce sanctions against puppy kickers. All the bits we need for a moral practice still follow, without a grounding in deontology or consequentialism, and with precious little metaethics. — Banno
You haven’t answered either:
What makes the statement true; or
Where your confidence comes from.
Neither of your answers are in any way adequate. — AmadeusD
Correspondence is an emergent relation between what is thought and/or believed about what is going on and what is going on. When what is thought about what's going on is 'equivalent' enough, or close enough to what is going on, then truth emerges. That is how meaningful true belief become real/actual/manifest/formed. That's what it takes. That's how correspondence 'between' belief about reality and reality(hence, meaningful true belief) emerges onto the world stage.
If it is the case that we ought not kick puppies, then "we ought not kick puppies" is true.
Are you questioning whether or not it is the case that we ought not kick puppies? — creativesoul
Given any rule, there remains the choice whether to follow it or go against it.Would you agree with my saying that we need no 'rule giver', 'enforcer', and/or judge aside from ourselves if for no other reason than strictly because we are all we have? — creativesoul
If there is no record of your company existing, it doesn't exist. Fact. — AmadeusD
If you have time, could you tell us if a contract, marriage or mortgage ceases to exist if the documents on which it is written are destroyed?
Since in many cases a contract does not even need to be written down in order to be valid, it would be odd. Wills are an obvious exception.
Sorry to bother you with such trivialities. — Banno
What bizarre, magical thinking. As if, *poof!*, a newly minted promise, shiny and golden, floats down from The Land of Ought.
The promise exists in the mind of the promiser, and their audience. That's it. — hypericin
But if the records are destroyed those things do not persist. They are the record of “promise” as you put it. — AmadeusD
This isn't the case with plain promises though. AS far as i'm concerned, promises don't exist in an of themselves and confer no obligation. — AmadeusD
It is best not to blur the real/imaginary divide. Even though Imaginary things do exist, and have real consequences. A man imagining a tentacle monster in front of him shouts and waves his arms in the real world.
A promise is just as imaginary as that monster. — hypericin
I love it when people put 'fact' after their statement. "Ohh, if you put fact, well now, clearly, it must be true...." — Tobias
In a court of law you are not really of concern. "Hey I solemnly promised to kill my father in law at the Christmas table, but you see the promise does not really exist so sentencing me for threatening murder is not warranted". A judge will make short work of that defense. — Tobias
Well, I suggest not dealing with a Dutchman as you might well find yourself paying indemnification because of your rather outlandish views on promises and obligations. — Tobias
Here this utter materialistic view of law reverts to an idealist view. — Tobias
Promises don’t exist; they occur. Obligations can exist. But I do not think a promise confers any. Can’t see any argument here from either yourself or Banno that gets close to satisfactory — AmadeusD
Ignoring the glibness of your other responses, this one shows I may not even need to address them. — AmadeusD
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and anyone who thought this even constitutes a defense or a sensible thing to say regarding a charge around threatening to kill isn’t thinking, or has no clue what they’re talking about. — AmadeusD
You’ve described a constructive trust. — AmadeusD
You’re discussing hearsay. “A judge would make short work of that defense”.
If your claim relies on a mere oral promise and you have no record of it, you will be ordered to pay costs. Having credible witnesses is a record. Best to read thoroughly ;) — AmadeusD
What it shows is that when one view is being absolutized, it generally reverts to its opposite. Here this utter materialistic view of law reverts to an idealist view. — Tobias
Obligations can exist. But I do not think a promise confers any. — AmadeusD
How can something that does not exist occur? — Tobias
It shows that utterances, whether they are recorded or not, have actual legal consequences. — Tobias
However, not all legal facts rely on them being recorded and entered into a registry of sorts. It is also wholly beside the point. — Tobias
They adjudicate claims. If I cannot prove my claim, then it is tossed out of the window, it is as easy as that — Tobias
but that does not mean my claim to being married is somehow false — Tobias
Your materialist view, taken to its logical consequence, leads to idealism, 'to be is to be perceived' in your case, 'to be is to be recorded'. — Tobias
That does not render them non existent though. The promise is there, the obligation has arisen, it simply cannot be proven. That is why I think your view comes down to a rather crude form of idealism. — Tobias
That it is easier to reach agreement in physics than in ethics is not an argument for ethical statements not having a truth value. — Banno
I assume you mean the almost universal agreement concerns when to assign blame and culpability? — Joshs
No, not addressing the question of blame. but rather of value and disvalue. Love is generally preferred over hate, courage over cowardice, selflessness over selfishness, kindness over cruelty, help over harm and so on. Murder, rape, torture, theft, deceit, exploitation and the like are universally (perhaps sociopaths excepted) condemned as being evil acts. As far as I can tell these facts about people are the only viable basis for moral realism, not some imagined transcendent "object" or whatever. — Janus
But are concepts like murder, hate, deceit, exploitation, cowardice, cruelty and evil at all intelligible without the implication of blame? We only blame persons for actions that they performed deliberately, with intent. Is it possible to be an accidental, unintentional murderer, coward, deceiver or hater? — Joshs
Of course they are intelligible without the implication of blame. We can say as Jesus reportedly did: "forgive them for they know not what they do". The idea of intent and responsibility may be inherent to those ideas, but the imputation of intent and responsibility is not indissolubly linked with the idea of deserving blame.Blame is precisely the assignment of intent and responsibility to an action that one deems to be unethical — Janus
My point was that there is no indissoluble logical or rational connection between intent, responsibility and blame — Janus
↪Joshs I disagree; blame is attendant upon the idea that the person really could have done otherwise; it is based on a libertarian notion of free will which is entrenched in the western psyche — Janus
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.