If the "deeper fact" is itself moral, then this is not a rebuttal. — Leontiskos

Thank you very much for this. Hmm. Maybe I'm conflating what's being rebutted then and missing that entirely.. because I just reject this entirely as to what i've attempted to do (stick with me, lol).. So: would it make sense of what i've been saying if it were transposed to be a rebuttal to that claim viz.

Claim: "One ought not kick puppies" (as a brute fact, ostensibly supporting the ethical position)
Response: Hey, that is actually not a brute fact (because XYZ underlying facts/data)

would be a rebuttal of that claim, but not the ethical framework? If this is what it appears to be, that would solve any issue i had with the exchange previous.

But more simply, to rebut "moral statements are brute," with, "moral statements cannot be brute," is obviously begging the question. — Leontiskos

showing that they cannot, surpasses this though, surely.
I guess what i mean to say here, is that I am claiming that the position that Moral facts are brute consists in them not being reducible. But if they are necessarily reducible, they are not brute facts.

Assume that's true - Am i just fucking up on applying this to the framework rather than any particular claim?

(im sorry, i've had to put this together between harrowing bits of work. Ill try edit for clarity later if need be but feel free to make what would normally be annoying observations a bout how badly ive worded things)

I agree with the possibility :)

Aye, you can say that again. And I'm sure you will. :grin: — Leontiskos

Can you please explain to me, as if i'm five years old what's going on with the following that results in it being question begging?

Position: Moral statements cannot be reduced to deeper facts (i.e are brute)
Rebuttal: Moral statements necessarily rely on deeper facts, whether you engage them or not (i.e they cannot be brute, fundamentally).

Which part begs the question? (I am not being facetious in any way).

And I have been explaining non-naturalism so now I don’t understand the relevance of your comments. — Michael

Ok, well sorry then.

You’re arguing that ethical non-naturalism isn’t tenable because it disagrees with your ethical naturalism. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s begging the question. — Michael

1. You've got the positions backwards, but i imagine that was just haste. No guff. Naturalism is what I take issue with.
2. Ok. Suffice to say 'No. That's not the case' and that I can't spend any more time enumerating that moral claims cannot be brute facts, independent of my personal ethical view. But that's what i've done. So i'll leave it there.

For it to be a rebuttal you must prove that moral facts can be explained in non-moral terms. You must prove that "one ought not kick puppies for fun because it hurts the puppy" is true. — Michael

Ahh, ok I'm groking you now. I still don't think that's right, though.

To my mind, and my understanding, what you're asking me to do is prove another ethical framework is true (something which would amount to those deeper facts establishing the 'correct' (to the view-holder's mind) ethical reason for the statement to be true))... I'm not trying to do that. Merely, that the claim of a ethical naturalist isn't tenable.

You have claimed that one ought not kick the puppy because it hurts the puppy. The ethical non-naturalist, being a non-naturalist, rejects this connection. You are begging the question and assuming ethical naturalism. — Michael

No, I haven't. I have presented a deeper fact about the claim - whether i believe that's the case is somewhat by the by. The rebuttal is there are deep facts about moral claims. If an ethical naturalist rejects that, so be it. That's the rebuttal they actually have to grapple with instead of just jettisoning and pretending those facts arren't pertinent to their claim.

Again, whether i'm correct or not, this is a rebuttal to ethical naturalism. Their denial doesn't do anything for their position other than expound it in some sense.

In a more involved circumstance, I may indeed refer to Hume to support the contention and I think our flow is similar on that. But it's unneeded here as the mere existence of those facts, and their patent connection to the moral claim, is enough to defeat the position that ... there are no deeper facts for the statement to be reduced to. Because.. there they are. And simply denying a connection to them isn't an adequate response.

Michael says that moral facts cannot be explained in non-moral terms.
AmadeusD says that Michael's claim is fatally flawed because moral facts can be explained in non-moral terms.

AmadeusD says that moral facts can be explained in non-moral terms.
Michael says that AmadeusD's claim is fatally flawed because moral facts cannot be explained in non-moral terms. — Michael

Ahh, Ok I think I see where we're crossing wires. That's not at all how the rebuttal actual is. See below:

Michael claims (fictionally) that the claim 'one ought not kick puppies for fun' is true, and brute (i.e admits of no deeper facts to whcih it can be reduced)

Amadeus says (in contracted form) That's wrong - here are the deeper facts on which your claim rests (add in suffering, arbitrariness or whatever).

Michael says No. "

But those deeper facts remain in existence, and do, in fact, support the claim.

This is quite different from your version of the hypothetical exchange. In yours, I offer no explanation of my claim. In my version, I offer a precise and specifically relevant rebuttal to the claim that there are no deeper facts.

So yeah, it's a rebuttal. I guess you could say the rebuttal is "there are always deeper facts" Which is not my opinion, but something i claim to actually be the case. That's a rebuttal, whether its strong or not.

That's fine, but it doesn't constitute a rebuttal of their position. — Michael

Sorry, I don't understand how pointing out a fatal flaw in a claim isn't a rebuttal? Deny facts that exist is surely a fatal flaw in a position?

Like, i could certainly wrong but if what i've said is the case, then **discreet** (edited in)ethical naturalist claims fail at the first hurdle.

And as I said, that's ethical naturalism. Those kinds of explanations are impossible for ethical non-naturalism. — Michael

I understand. I'm not quite sure where we're getting wires crossed.

I'm aware that is the naturalist position - but my position is that: that is factually wrong. There are further explanations available and to just ignore them doesn't constitute it being impossible. Unsure if i can clarify that further.

What "deep facts"? — Michael

I've given you an example, which you've quoted. To be noted, though, is that this concept can apply to any claim.

Do you recall the below?

"One ought not kick puppies for fun"

Why?

"Because it hurts the puppy"

And then there's a further conversation.

The bold and underlined, and italicised is a deeper fact about why kicking puppies for fun is wrong. The moral realists I've encountered (particularly here) don't seem to think either that A. those facts exists; or B. are relevant to supporting the statement itself.

I think both are mistaken. Therefore, my position is that the moral realist has work to do. They may not believe those explanations are required, but they are available - and so their position can be reduced to deeper facts. Why aren't they engaging them? This is my issue.

All you seem to be saying here is that moral realism is incorrect, and so moral realists are ignorant (in the literal sense). — Michael

Luckily for me, you've actually quoted my saying more than that. And giving a reason why that's the case - because the deep facts in regard to any claim are necessarily left untouched to support the view that there aren't any - which is obviously the claim of a moral realist if they believe their moral statements are brute. It begs no question.

why can't there be brute moral facts? — Michael

Because that position is ignorant of the deeper facts related to any moral claim.

Edit: my current position, above. Not a be-all-end-all. But, in these recent conversations this seems true of all moral claims made. The ethical naturalist may not want to explore those deeper bits of data, but they exist, so, it's a flaw.

That's ethical naturalism. Ethical non-naturalism, by definition, cannot offer this kind of explanation. — Michael

Yes. I am pointing out the flaw in that notion. I'm not disagreeing with your possible view points at all. I'm merely pointing out that that position is an ignorant one.

Nice.. that's a good place to start! Even if we never go further lol

So what sort of explanation do you expect from then? — Michael

You've not at all understood what i actually said - which is that there are further explanations that they choose not to engage.

"One ought not kick puppies for fun"

Why?

"Because it hurts the puppy"

And then there's a further conversation. The old mates making moral claims around here seem to think that after the claim, nothing comes.

That's more about your inability to understand an unexpected point of view than about ethics. — Banno

No. It's about exactly what i said it was about - further proclamations without support don't help. Hope this helps :)

If moral facts are brute facts then there is no explanation. — Michael

This is true - But i think the fundamental problem you, Bob Ross, and I have all come across these last weeks - is that it may not be the case that there is no explanation - but that realists can't grok/don't notice the deeper facts that explain their position, or the competing position. When a moral claim is made and called Brute, I can recognize the deeper facts it rests on, generally. It is the plum non-engagement with them that frustrates the discussion, from my view.

Brute facts seem more reasonable to me than an infinite regress. — Michael

That's a fair thing to intuit. I intuit the other way. Any interest in hashing that out?

No problem, AmadeusD. You don't have to apologize. Esp., not in advance! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Thank you; I appreciate that. At risk of sounding preening, it's actually pretty neat to come across good-faith disagreement and helpful responses when i make mistakes!

That's why only sentient things can have C. That is, all living things — Alkis Piskas

I doin't think all living things are sentient. All living things could be considered conscious, but i would say sentience is reserved for some benchmark higher up the organisational ladder that I don't know specifically.

Well, how can it perceive flies?
If you drug it --I don't know, with an injection and some special substance a botanist woul know-- would it be able to perceive the fily? Wouln't it be become "unconscious" in some way? Isn't this what happens with humans and animals too? — Alkis Piskas

Well, i don't know. That's an interesting proposition, but you'd have to work out whether the effect was 'mental' or physical. We can take anesthetics which alter our conscious experience, but act on some physical element of the body (i.e C-fibres no longer firing or some such). I guess you'd need to establish that the perceived the fly in the first place, as opposed to perceiving merely air pressure changes triggering non-choice-drive reactions in the body of the plant that result in the 'snapping out' at the fly (which is actually snapping at a non-consciously-recognised area of statistically significant difference in air pressure vs the 'background' air pressure)

For the VFT, if their behaviour is adjusted because, for argument sake, there are cilia on their surface which are now depressed by hte drug, and so not sensitive to changes in air pressure, that may change the behaviour of a VFT but does is have any cognitive effect? As i say, I don't know, but my guess would be not. I don't think a VFT has any sensation of 'hunting' and 'being unable to hunt' the way a human would, under similar experiment.

and by extension seek to mark ethical statements as not truth-apt; as being mere opinion or taste or some such, and hence (somewhat inconsistently) as being neither true nor false. — Banno

That's true of moral statements, and it is not inconsistent. It is true of all moral statements.

The cool thing about the position i hold is, is that nothing you or Leontiskos have asserted has any affect on the premise that 'There are no objective moral standards'. So, without a 'chosen' system there literally are no true moral statements, and that hasn't even been addressed by continually just stating that kicjking puppies for fun is wrong. Yep, that's your view.

On with yee. LOL

Its you realists that struggle, that are throw up your hands and say "whelp, its a brute fact, what else can I say! Explanation's gotta stop somewhere!". This is an anti-scientific, anti-philosophical attitude. — hypericin

:ok: It always amounts to this. I wonder if Banno is actually a secret theist.

Its therefore probably not a kind of realism that is problematic for an anti-realist. — Apustimelogist

I would whole-heartedly agree. But his persistence in pretending his proclamations amount to 'truth-making statements' is absurd, and in service to pretending moral realism is a done deal. At least, that's his version.

Presupposing something you didn’t need. What might that be? — Mww

No idea what you think you're asking, soz.

Yeah, okay, but what do you mean???

That he thinks this object is bigger than that object, merely from its greater degree of extension in space, all he’s done is manufacture a means by which the relation he perceives accords with the relation he thinks. — Mww

mmm. Good. I needed this.

↪AmadeusD I'll repeat the simple point that I am not here attempting anything like a coherent, complete theory of ethics, but simply pointing out that there are true moral statements.

Those who have disagreed have either claimed that it is false that one ought not kick puppies for fun, or engaged in the special pleading that despite common usage it is neither true nor false.

Neither reply is tenable. — Banno

It's not true. You've done nothing other than basically saying you believe it and it should be true (ding ding bloody ding lol).
Your point, is exactly as i outlined it, and fails just as spectacularly.

Your claim of 'untenable' is supported by what?? Your imagination that no one is capable of making that claim?

it isn't true. It's normative. Go ahead and beat hte argument, instead of just making a claim.

this is garbled nonsense.

Take care.

Thank you; appreciate that and the link-to-post.

I have never encountered someone who believes it is rationally justifiable to impose tastes. — Leontiskos

This question isn't a piggy-back, its totally askance from the thread - Are you using the word 'impose' here to include 'encourage', or is it more definite?

It matters not, it was just a function of Quoting and bad organization, move it to the correct spot, as I did in my post. Which weighs nothing on my argument. — Vaskane

I allowed for that possibility - thanks for confirming.

If you don't think moral anti-realism lost the day in this thread, then you simply don't understand the OP or the purpose of this thread. — Leontiskos

Or, and forgive me for this, you're wrong.

In either case, it appears you've made your conclusions and that's fine :)

Not quite sure what that means? — Vaskane

It's a known turn of phrase. I'm sure you can clarify for yourself ;) .

You've quoted my first response, and your second response, in reverse order. Whether that matters, I don't know, but it's incorrect.

To which you even admit that you're too afraid to venture into using your own judgement because you're afraid to convey your own solipsistic machinations: — Vaskane

Nothing in the quoted piece suggests anything of the sort.
And in fact, I feel no need to clarify as the comment stands on it's own.

You've not shown me any reasoning for hte quote I questioned.

Your quote/s from Bob don't touch what i've said.

adjust one's position for new objections isn't a failure, nor is refining ones position or language. Neither of us have ceded the ground of anti-realism. We've just come up against the same problem with new words or objections every time - but the problem amounts to just saying 'It's true, give up'.

That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place? — Alkis Piskas

It was my intention (as noted, right there) - I'm just not yet that good at writing what I think. This has, and i imagine, will lead to many weird disagreements that don't actually exist between myself an other posters so i apologise in advance for anything points in future this happens between us again. I think it'll be an issue for some time, given my wet-behind-the-earsness.

Now, I don't know what does sentience mean to you. You can tell me next time — Alkis Piskas

My understanding of sentience is that it is held universally apart from consciousness in that it requires the further fact of 'feeling'. Subjective experience+feeling (hedonic).

In this way, I have no problem talking about the two separately. A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness.

Hi mate,

Suffice to say nothing there has an effect on what i've said. I think it's far more to do with your affectations than much else. Shall leave this one be :)

In this thread I'd say we see a large number of failed attempts to establish moral anti-realism, and a large number of failed attempts to overthrow moral realism. — Leontiskos

From Bob and I's perspective, the exact opposite is true.

That's kind of the entire point of our lines of questioning. Nothing, whatsoever, has been presented to support moral realism. The closest anyone has got is Banno's weirdo move of just claiming 'brute fact' without anything whatsoever to establish that claim.

You've not done anything more. Sorry to say. But this is the nature or differing perspectives. I just can't grasp why anyone is being a dick about it (Banno's obtuseness mainly, but you've devolved a couple of times too).

In fact you're attempting to use my very argument against you against me. — Vaskane

It is not my problem if the emperor has no clothes, Vaskane.

That you can't shows you're probably being dishonest about something. — Vaskane

Bizarre. Can you let me know your reasoning for this? Rather htan your claim?

ust say the other possibilities out loud. — Vaskane

I have. Multiple times. But your job here, it seems, is ignoring everything relevant to maintain a position of both superiority, and aloofness which allows you to avoid, altogether, speaking without extreme affectation.

Again, Not my vibe. Enjoy :)

That you don't understand that is because of exactly as what Bella says, Your perception bars your perception of other perceptions. — Vaskane

It appears you are firmly incapable of considering other, polite, possibilities.

That said:

No, like now, I could have asked you to elaborate, as you did of me, by asking you to clarify what exactly you mean, but instead of being afraid of perhaps embarrassing myself by misinterpreting the definitions of the words used (that's why words have definitions in the first place: for clarity; my apologies for using a combination that appeared like hieroglyphics to you) I merely trust my judgement, and hold my self accountable for any accidental fallacy of equivocation that may occur during the use of words with multiple meanings. I've long overcome the fear and embarrassment that occurs on the route to knowledge. It's as simple as saying "Oh! That's what you meant!" And move on, all the while, I'm continuing the discussion, and even allowing myself to be vulnerable with the other party. — Vaskane

Ignoring your continuous ad hominem,

Fine. Nothing abhorrent about this, but... This is a waste of my time, and I don't have the time to wade through misapprehensions, when you could (if capable) just answer directly what you mean, to avoid putting the other person through a slog that you could have avoided with a modicum of good faith.

Again, if this is your vibe, go for it. It isn't mine and my issue is that you seem to have a pretty deep and untouchable superiority complex, in which i have no interest. But thank you for elaborating, nevertheless.

He's saying someone like me can swear that perceptions can bar perceptions. People can even be saying the same thing from two different perspectives and fight about it until they realize they mean the same damn thing. — Vaskane

Unless you';re claiming to have overcome sense perception, this is built-in to every conversation ever had. Doesn't have a reason to be said here.

Yeah, when you’re strange, in a strange land, that died in mcarthur park in the rain, like the Chevy in the levy, in Paris. — Bella fekete

A wonderful set of references.