No, i will not admit my use of correct vs your use of right makes my position unreasonable. Especially since i didn't take any position in the options. And gave you an non or the above option to describe it yourself. — Rank Amateur
My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect. — Rank Amateur
No, because I'm ultimately an individualistic moral relativist. I only accept cultural relativism as just another way of pointing out moral relations. It is useful, and it reflects a sort of truth. But I don't actually depend on any cultural reference, because I can just say, for example, that murder is wrong relative to my judgement. That's about me and my judgement, not any culture. — S
Empty words. You are a dogmatist, and you aren't being reasonable, whether you like it or not, unless you attempt to support the following:
My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect.
— Rank Amateur — S
Still want to get back to this. Your view is there is no truth statement we can make about the rightness of slavery without a cultural reference. Is this correct? — Rank Amateur
Agree completely , the issue is, do you think that means, as S does, that there is no truth statement we can make about slavery without cultural context.
Turning this around, and using ↪S word. Cultural norms are always right, the subject of their judgments are variable.
And does that mean that it is objectively true, that the prevalent cultural norms, whatever they are, are by definition right? — Rank Amateur
It is my individual moral judgement, and it requires no support at all. — Rank Amateur
Moral judgement is right and wrong, not correct and incorrect. And if you're just saying that slavery has always been wrong relative to your judgement, then that's fine. It has always been wrong relative to my judgement also — S
ok - agree
now if I say relative to my judgement there is nothing wrong with slavery. Other than saying you disagree, and use whatever you can muster to attempt to change my mind. If I don't change my mind, and according to your moral view - I am just wrong relative to you, and right relative to me. And if that is the case than there is no real truth statement we can make about slavery. — Rank Amateur
And if that is the case than there is no real truth statement we can make about slavery. — Rank Amateur
And if that is the case than there is no real truth statement we can make about slavery. — Rank Amateur
Thanks and thanks - that is fine, we just disagree then. — Rank Amateur
But again, you haven't shown that your disagreement is reasonable. Can you demonstrate a "real truth"? — S
Ok - then we just disagree. Which is fine - I think there is a truth statement we can make about slavery. — Rank Amateur
And does that mean that it is objectively true, that the prevalent cultural norms, whatever they are, are by definition right? — Rank Amateur
what would be the motivation for me to argue a truth statement to an individual moral relativist. No matter what I say, you can just always say - "not relative to me"
So unless i find some compulsion to change you relative view - why would i bother? — Rank Amateur
Not so. "Validity" as a term of art from logic simply refers to the form of an argument. Plenty of invalid arguments have true conclusions. Plenty of valid arguments have false premises.Validity is a logical idea, and it obtains when it's impossible for a conclusion to be false and/or impossible for premises to be true. — Terrapin Station
Really? Murder is immoral is a moral stance. Please demonstrate - prove - that it is not true. It is certainly moral stance. That leaves the content, that murder is immoral. It won't do to appeal to opinion or relativity. It's no proof of anything to say that so-and-so says it's so - excepting that so-and-so does say it, and that is what you prove.moral stances aren't true or false.
Perhaps no personal stance. I agree that personal stances are personal. But not all stances are grounded therein, are they. To demonstrate those, and that they are not merely personal, is a function of reason. Do you accept reason? And do you accept that reason has a place at this table?Re perspective, the reason for the question is that there is no person from whose perspective all moral stances are "equal." So we must be talking about the perspective of someone other than an individual considering moral stances. So what perspective are we talking about?
If there is some philosophical rule that says we have to agree - it has been widely ignored for a very long time. Understanding is important - agreement - not so much. — Rank Amateur
Not so. "Validity" as a term of art from logic simply refers to the form of an argument. Plenty of invalid arguments have true conclusions. Plenty of valid arguments have false premises. — tim wood
You have already said that all truth is relative to your view of it. Again unless I feel some need to change your views on the nature of morality, why would I argue truth with someone who says relative to him. There is no point — Rank Amateur
Validity is a logical idea, and it obtains when it's impossible for a conclusion to be false and/or impossible for premises to be true. — Terrapin Station
Yeah, it's a term of art from logic defined as impossibility that a conclusion is false and/or conclusions are true. — Terrapin Station
From your source:
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false."
I think you might gain from reading the article again, or at least once, and by noting the differences between what you copied and what it actually says. Sometimes differences make a difference! — tim wood
You have already said that all truth is relative to your view of it. Again unless I feel some need to change your views on the nature of morality, why would I argue truth with someone who says relative to him. There is no point — Rank Amateur
What do you think the important differences are? (I know what you might answer, but that will give me a chance to explain other things to you that apparently you're not familiar with or never understood up to this point) — Terrapin Station
The important difference is that what you suppose to be about content (soundness) is actually about form (independent of content). — tim wood
Also, you don't seem to recognise or appreciate how sophisticated my ethical position is. It is pragmatic and flexible, not rigid. If you want to talk about truth-values in relation to moral statements in an absolutist or objective sense, then we can do so. That leads to nonsense or falsity. I would be an error theorist, rather than a moral relativist, in that situation. — S
Re perspective, the reason for the question is that there is no person from whose perspective all moral stances are "equal." So we must be talking about the perspective of someone other than an individual considering moral stances. So what perspective are we talking about? — Terrapin Station
If moral relativism were true, then from the point of view of the disinterested observer all moral positions on any issue would be equally valid. — 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.