The judges believe he engaged in insurrection, a federal crime, and are keeping him off the ballot because of it, even though no one has been charged (let alone convicted) of said crime. So much for the constitution. — NOS4A2

The 14th Amendment doesn't say that only someone charged (let alone convicted) of insurrection is ineligible. It only says that someone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible. It's all explained in the court order.

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?

I suppose then that guns shoot people? Lock them up! — NOS4A2

Ridicule as an attempt to deflect from your hypocrisy. Very transparent.

I'll try to make this simple for you.

You are claiming that the judges would be to some degree responsible for Trump not appearing on the ballot even though the only thing they've done is issue a written judgement.

The rest of us are claiming that Trump is to some degree responsible for the attempted insurrection even though the only thing he did was give a speech.

Either accept both or reject both.

Sorry, guns are killers now. I wonder how they get away with it. — NOS4A2

I said that guns kill, not that guns are killers. If I said that downing kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a killer?

Guns are murderers now. — NOS4A2

I said that guns kill, not that guns are murderers. If I said that drowning kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a murderer?

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.

But you believe commands command and orders order. — NOS4A2

Yes, just as guns kill.

I’m just trying to wade through the magical thinking here. — NOS4A2

It's not magic, it's common sense. The problem is that your position is nonsense.

Humans don’t command or order, then, only their words do? — NOS4A2

Humans command by using words, just like humans kill by using a gun.

And Trump influenced his cult by using his words.

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.

Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote

More evidence of his direct involvement in an illegal scheme to defraud the election.

Do orders order, commands command, according to you? — NOS4A2

Obviously.

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.

Yes, thanks for repeating the nonsense.

The hypocrisy in your claim that the court saying things is an act of coercion but that Trump saying things can't be an act of influence is laughable.

This is what happens when you will do anything to refuse to admit that Trump is in the wrong.

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.

Are people orders now? — NOS4A2

Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.

If your response doesn't answer my question then I'm still waiting on an answer.

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.

I didn’t say their orders coerced her. — NOS4A2

You: People coerce others.
Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.

Make up your mind. You're tying yourself in knots trying to defend your indefensible position.

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

And are we to be a realist or a nominalist about these things, mirroring the distinction between mathematical realism and mathematical nominalism?

They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot. — NOS4A2

And their orders are just words. Therefore, if their orders have coerced her then their words have coerced her, which according to you is impossible.

People coerce others. — NOS4A2

How? What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?

That particular state of affairs consists of both physical and non physical things. — creativesoul

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

I am blaming the court for coercing the secretary — NOS4A2

How do they do that? All they've done is printed words on a document. What does it mean for words to "coerce" another person? Seems like another word for "influence".

It seems your argument is something like if a claim cannot be verified it ought not be believed — creativesoul

I suppose I was unfairly equating "verified" with "justified". So rather than ask you how you would verify the claim that one ought not kick puppies I will ask you how you would justify the claim that one ought not kick puppies.

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. Moral realism appears to be a dogma.

I make no claim that one ought not hold unjustified beliefs.

Well, you were seeking verification. Hence... rules. Rules... are an example of b. — creativesoul

Rules require a rule-maker.

I personally do not feel the need to verify that we ought not kick puppies. I do not need a rule for that. — creativesoul

Right, so as I said, moral realism is a dogma. It doesn't even try to justify its assertions.

It’s the fear of force that influences their decision. Sorry. — NOS4A2

The fear is in her head, not in the words written by the judges. So, again, by your own reasoning you cannot blame the court for the Secretary's decision to not add Trump to the ballot (assuming she obeys the court order).

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

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?

Coercion is not just speech, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2

And he finally admits that words can influence another's behaviour.

You're welcome ladies and gentlemen.

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?

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.

Metaethics

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?

It is about far more than just "are moral propositions truth-apt and if so are any true?"

A few pages back I argued how an external judge was not necessary. — creativesoul

Can you link to the post in question? I don't recall an argument, only ever assertions.

Do you think this something we discover, or is it just two ways of talking about numbers? — Banno

Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics

Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.

I believe that the above is false. I am not a mathematical realist, but I still believe in mathematical truths.

Similarly, one can accept that there are moral truths but not accept that moral truths are "independent of us and our language, thought, and practices". One can believe that moral truths are invented, not discovered.

There is simply more to metaethics than just accepting that some moral sentences are true.

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?

This is boring me.

You objected that you could not make sense of what I wrote.

Is your argument that if you cannot find the applicable code of behaviour which clearly and unambiguously forbids kicking puppies that it does not make sense to you or is it that making sense requires being verifiable/falsifiable? Something else?

What I wrote stands. I'm failing to see the relevance in what you're doing. — creativesoul

I'm trying to show you that the concept of something being forbidden only makes sense in the context of some relevant authority telling you to not do something and possibly threatening you with punishment for disobeying.

If you try to argue that things can be forbidden even without this then you are quite literally talking nonsense. Hence Anscombe's remark that the word "ought" is simply "a word of mere mesmeric force" with no real substance.

Moral realism is a dogma. It baselessly treats a claim like "you ought not kick puppies" as being something of a truism. Unless you can justify this assertion then it is literally an unjustified assertion.

Check the codes of behaviour. — creativesoul

Where do I find them?

Pose a clear question. — creativesoul

How do I verify or falsify the claim that I ought not kick puppies?

From whence punishment from external entity/judge? There is no need on my view. I covered that part already. In the first few posts of this particular discussion. It has since went sorely neglected. — creativesoul

A search for posts by you containing the word "forbidden" for the past year brings up five results, all of which only assert that something is forbidden without explaining what this means.

Are you saying that someone has threatened to punish us if we kick puppies? If not then what does it mean for kicking puppies to be forbidden?

What if such a claim cannot be verified/falsified by your choice of method? — creativesoul

I don't have a choice of method. I'm asking you how to do it. Are you going to answer?

Fourth.

Here, here, and here were the earlier comments.

Sometimes, kicking puppies is forbidden. — creativesoul

If by this you just mean that someone or something bigger and stronger than me has threatened to punish me if I kick puppies then I understand what you mean. If you mean something else then you're going to have to explain it.