No.

Morality is not based on language use. — Qwex

I've offered an argument. The justificatory ground of which cannot be any stronger. Answering "no" and then neglecting to address the aforementioned argument leaves me non-plussed... to borrow a phrase from one I admire. Hell, you didn't even get what I did say right.

You ought pay closer attention.

Throughout philosophical history, morality has been talked about in terms such as "utterances of ought". Such things have been called "moral claims" due to the inclusion of "ought", and moral claims are claims based upon one's own moral thought and belief; one's own morality; one's own criterion - per se - of what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.

We all know about Hume. For those who do not: Look up Hume's guillotine. Hume is perhaps best known for it. He convincingly argued that one cannot derive an ought from an is without presupposing another ought somewhere along the line. This basically put an end to such derivations being bandied about as if they are somehow logically convincing trains of thought, and helped give rise to the moral intuition vein of thinking common nowadays.

The issue pertains to what we're supposed to do when there are conflicting moralities; conflicting thought, belief, and/or ideas about what ought be done, about what we ought aspire towards. The issue is who is the ultimate arbiter; by what standard ought we decide what to do as a result of the conflicting ideas resulting from relative nature of all morality.

There can be no doubt that something must be done. That's not a matter of ought. What is a matter of ought, is which action ought be chosen, which kind of thinking ought be fostered, which beliefs ought be cultivated, and what standard we use to establish and/or determine this.

Un is giving a rough and ready account of the article that this thread is about.

The term "populist" is being bandied about. Shame. "Nationalist" as well.

Lose the terms, focus upon the issues involving what's best for the overwhelming majority.

It's not a matter of why, it's a matter of how.

When everything is broken down, categorized, and/or otherwise classified into one or the other... then by method and/or 'definition' alone... nothing is both.

And yet...

Many things are.

The naturalistic fallacy typically involves denying that all naturally occurring things/events are good. With that sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree.

Reification already assumes a dichotomy between physical and nonphysical... real and idea.

That dichotomy is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which is both. So...

Set out what each of the fallacies requires in order to be a fallacy of that kind.

Rational people are not always good, nor are all rational minds, acts, etc. So, I'm not sure what you're aiming at here.

Yes, modern psychology is flawed. It conflates thought, belief, and feelings, and often has the goal of making the patient 'feel' better.

Tarski focuses upon "is true" or as it's sometimes described "truth as a predicate". The problem with Tarski is that "is true" is not equivalent to truth. It(Convention T) is a perfect semantic rendering of "is true" though.

Truth(as reality or correspondence to what's happened/happening) is not existentially dependent upon language. All conceptions of "truth" are.

"We should reconcile ourselves with the fact that we are confronted, not with one concept, but with several different concepts which are denoted by one word" — Isaac

Indeed. My only reply here thus far, prior to this one, began exactly on that focus...

Substitution practices clarify the differences. It's good for determining which is more primary/foundational; which is existentially dependent upon which.

Mere bit flipping by itself does none of that. It just flips bits according to rules. If this one's on turn that one off. Rule-based bit flipping. — fishfry

Othello for computers.

:wink:

Virtual reality is existentially dependent upon reality... which is not 'virtual'.

Meh.

In certain situations, say... when one promises to plant a rose garden on Sunday and nothing else unexpected happens to stop the plan, how can we dispense with the resultant thought and/or belief that there ought be a rose garden on Monday?

Is this a moral ought?

Nice thread . Good stuff so far. Earlier there was a distinction drawn between modus tollens readings and modus ponens ones.

The following is her second theses, and it strikes me as intriguing...

The second is that the concepts of obligation and duty - moral obligation and moral duty, that is to say, and of what is morally right and wrong, and of the moral sense of "ought", ought be jettisoned if this is psychologically possible.

What if it were the case that it is not psychologically possible to dispense with those linguistic devices; the accepted uses of those terms?

Is Anscombe in search of a theory of mind which results in just that?

Forcing people to do things they do not want to do is immoral. — Tzeentch

I like to force people to leave others alone sometimes... dunno 'bout you. I would not call such action immoral. Yet, on pains of coherence or special pleading, you must.

:brow:

I think your notion of what counts as"immoral" needs a whetstone(at a minimum)...

Do those who take power have the right to take it and wield it? — Brett

Rights are afforded to humans... by humans; to animals... by humans.

Power over people is acquired in only one of two ways. It is either given by consent, or it is usurped. To which method of acquisition are you referring?

Well, it's not going to hurt for us to understand how minds work if our aim is to tell folk what to do with them... — Banno

Yep. Thought and belief anyone?

:wink:

Kidding. Hope you are well. I need to finish my reading...

Thoughts of good health sent your way my friend.

:smile:

The Bernie lovers here haven't said a word about Buttigieg. (At least haven't noticed)

Telling. — ssu

Telling?

Nah.

Pretentiousness looms large.

Not all Sanders supporters fit your notion of "Bernie lovers".

Gross overgeneralization looms large.

The mayor's uptick is but a moment in time. What's to say?

Spot on.

Do you see the difference between what I actually said and your report of that?

...when Bernie is about to take Iowa the final poll disappears.. — Baden

Was there an ongoing accurate tally to support this?

Curious. I really do not know. Sarcasm?

Well, the Iowa caucus was a gong show. The DNC has been preparing for years for this moment. It’s now a dumpster fire. I wonder if they’ll blame the Russians. — NOS4A2

They are denying any outside interference problems... currently anyway.

You can continue to claim it was taken from Warren, but it's borderline ridiculous. — Xtrix

Funny. I do not remember saying that. Never would, in fact.

What seems to have happened, according to Anscombe, is that we've carried forth a whole ethical machinery involving obligation, while jettisoning the idea of divine legislation which contextualizes and grounds it — csalisbury

Yes. That is a pillar, of sorts, for this paper... or so it seems to me.

(5) Conceding that Hume was right in a way, but he mistook the force of his own argument: it doesn't vitiate ethics (pace Hume), nor does require that we need to bridge a gap from is to ought because that's not how 'is' and 'oughts' work! — StreetlightX

That's much the way I've taken it as well. She clearly suggests dropping the notion of morally ought, altogether... on page seven, and fourteen as well(in favor of just "ought").

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice.
— creativesoul

Warren wasn't running in '16. Bernie was talking -- and continues to talk -- about a rigged economy for the wealthy. Trump appropriated the "rigged" shortly thereafter. — Xtrix

She need not be a candidate in the 2016 election to have repeatedly claimed that "the system is rigged" years before.

It could be that both use(d) the phrase...

Warren did a lot of research work into the financial disaster of 2008 and it included her famously saying that the system was rigged as a result of her findings... That was all long before 2016 my friend.

Bernie discusses several different aspects of the system that could be called "rigged" including, but not limited to, taxes, health insurance, financial/banking legislation, trade deals, anti-trust laws, etc.

I imagine he'll have quite a bit to say about the impeachment of Trump after the matter is officially closed/settled.

Yes. I think that those parts you've just quoted and others seem to be a clear indication that she is after a fact-based methodological approach, and is fond of somehow incorporating virtues or something virtue-like into this new approach. I'm only on page seven, and I very well may be misreading her, but that's the overall impression I'm getting so far.

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.
— creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system." — Xtrix

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice.

Bernie was more about disclosing the fact that neither of the two parties had successfully introduced and/or passed legislation that was good for the average American manufacturing and/or building trades worker. Hence, he is an independent, and has said on more than one occasion that there is very little difference between the two parties for the last fifty or so years. He is spot on.

The Clinton's prided themselves upon "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done", when all that really amounted to is conceding to Republican financial, ethical(regarding crime and government assistance), and globalization(trade agreements). All of those positions caused demonstrable financial harm to a very very large portion of the American population... and in more than one way. The only thing that separated the Clinton's from the republican party was better lip service to gun control, gay rights, and abortion... They were more than anything... political convenience seekers.

He was one of the first people(candidates) in recent times to divulge the truth about all of the trade agreements and their "disasterous" affects/effects upon all American blue collar workers. While standing for civil rights, he doesn't allow racial problems to distract us from these socio-economic ones... which also underlie many of the racial ones.

We can fix both.

Half way through... no more time.

Very, very, interesting take though... through page seven.

I like it. Why continue to categorize modern moral thinking in terms of - remnants and vestiges leftover from - archaic conceptions?

How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?
— Monist

You learn what true is by learning about false. — Banno

Yup.

It is only after becoming aware that things aren't the way one thought they were(only after becoming aware of being mistaken), that one begins to understand the role that truth/falsity play in all thought, belief, and statements thereof.

Sure. But your other posts have demonstrated your lack of insight, so I don’t much care what you think. — Banno

Wow.

:grin:

Even I have not received such outright blatant disrespect from the grumpy old goat, and I'm at odds with him(and myself at times) intentionally...

Nice thread my friend. Much needed thought in today's world, and definitely a subject matter that my own position has significant trouble attending to.

I'll read, but will not enter into discussion until after I know I've a good grasp on things... old dogs and new tricks.

:wink:

ssu is not an American, and based upon his/her participation on these forums, has absolutely no vested interest in the success of the USA, but rather seems to be more interested is sewing discord. So...

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.

:wink:

But he's done nothing to correct the trade problems. Despite all his blather. American manufacturing and building trades are no better off from anything he has done. Bernie will be quick to point this out and point it out clearly.

That dynamic(adopting Bernie's talking points) is no longer available if Bernie receives the nomination. If he does not, and he loses to Biden, then the same dynamic will apply again, because Biden cannot pick up those talking points any more than Hillary could.

Bernie 2020!

Bernie Sanders is very good at drawing clean clear lines in the sand and making people choose a side... on the one side is what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans... and on the other, what's not.

Choose a side, or better yet...

Let's look at what you've already chosen(in cases where it applies)... Bernie was right at the time, and sometimes he was the only one(the only nay).

His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten). — Xtrix

I would lean towards intentionally neglected to be mentioned by opposing candidates... not forgotten.

It's not about my imaginings. It's about the way it's supposed to work. Not all Senators are failing to perform sworn duty.

They didn't do anything unconstitutional; that was the point I made earlier. They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable. Senators have carte blanche to judge guilt and to judge whether or not the crime is a "high crime or misdemeanor", and this implies there is always sufficient wiggle room to acquit. They will nearly universally use this wiggle room to acquit when it's a President of their own party. Unless the opposition party has close to a 2/3 majority (which is hard to forsee ever happening), there will not be a removal — Relativist

You do realize that most of(nearly all) the framers were against political factions(parties)... right?

So, to point out partisan politics implying that it is not unconstitutional is well...

Just plain wrong.