OK.

S has got you by the short hairs.

S has got you by the short hairs. — Mww

:grin::up:

OK, so that leaves the question of whether something can be valuable even if it is not valued or recognized.

The opposing answers to that distinguish moral realism from ethical subjectivism. — Andrew M

That question seems to raise others:

What is meant by "valuable" in the context of the question? If to be valuable does not entail actually being valued, then does it at least entail the potential to be valued? And then, valued by whom, by how many and so on?

I reject the objective/subjective distinction for reasons given. Other than that, we're in agreement here. Moving on... — creativesoul

I don't know what those reasons are, and I'm not going to look through this discussion to find them, but I will say that I think that rejecting that distinction is about as sensible as rejecting the black/white distinction or the yes/no distinction. That is, to do so is pretty senseless, and a bit like shooting yourself in the foot.

The relevant statement is not even "X is immoral", it's "X is immoral relative to Person A" and "X is immoral relative to Person B". There is no "X is immoral" under moral relativism. — S

Yes there is! It is just further qualified as being "relative to person A".

All you've done is note that different people have different moral belief.

So what?

I don't know what those reasons are, and I'm not going to look through this discussion to find them, but I will say that I think that rejecting that distinction is about as sensible as rejecting the black/white distinction or the yes/no distinction. That is, to do so is pretty senseless, and a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. — S

The irony.

It's a yes or no question, that I would like to read. Care to answer it? — creativesoul

Are you trying to be funny? It is an inappropriate question, so no. Clarify first, then we take it from there.

Can "X is immoral" be true/false?

:rofl:

A dead end?

"X is immoral" is about X.

"X is immoral relative to A" is about A's moral belief.

Again, I do not see what's so funny. You're making yourself look bad. Do you not see?

Do you or do you not hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false?

It's a simple question.

Clearly you hold that "X is immoral relative to A" can be, as do I.

Can A's belief be mistaken(false)?

That's where we sem to differ.

Yes there is! — creativesoul

Well, actually you're not even wrong. The statement is too ambiguous for a moral relativist to comment on it productively. Obviously there is an "X is immoral (relative to such-and-such)", for the moral relativist, but not without that vital part in the brackets.

It's as simple as that. You need to clarify.

Do you or do you not hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false?

It's a simple question. — creativesoul

So why the heck aren't you addressing the answer I already gave? Moral statements like that are truth-apt. Interpreted as per moral objectivism, they're false or at least unwarranted. That's why I offer up moral relativism as a better model.

Are you a moral objectivist?

Clearly you hold that "X is immoral relative to A" can be, as do I.

Can A's belief be mistaken(false)?

That's where we sem to differ. — creativesoul

Are you a moral objectivist? — creativesoul

No, of course I'm not.

...

Are you a moral objectivist?
— creativesoul

No, of course I'm not. — S

I asked if you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false. I didn't ask if someone else did. I didn't ask if you knew the name of a philosophical school of thought which does. I didn't ask if moral objectivism does...

I asked if you do.

Do you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false?

Clearly you hold that "X is immoral relative to A" can be, as do I.

Can A's belief be mistaken(false)?

Jesus Christ. "X is immoral relative to A" is true if X is immoral relative to A, and false otherwise.

But that's obvious.

"X is immoral relative to A" is true if X is immoral relative to A, and false otherwise.

But that's obvious. — S

I already agreed to that. Move on...

Can A's belief be false?

I asked if you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false. I didn't ask if someone did. I didn't ask if you knew the name of a philosophical school of thought which does. I didn't ask if moral objectivism does...

I asked if you do.

Do you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false? — creativesoul

Predictable. Yes, I do, in the sense I think is the best way forward for ethics, which is the moral relativism sense. I already told you that I think that moral statements are truth-apt. Under moral objectivism, this means false or unwarranted - no truth. I see that as a problem. Under moral relativism, you get truth and falsity. That's my resolution.

Do you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false?
— creativesoul

Yes, I do, in the sense I think is the best way forward for ethics, which is the moral relativism sense. — S

So then, what would make "X is immoral" false?

I already agreed to that. Move on... — creativesoul

Pah! You've got some nerve. He asks me a question, then when I answer it, he tells me to move on! :lol:

Can A's belief be false? — creativesoul

That's what truth-apt means. Yes, it can. And I literally just set out for you what's required for it to be false. Reread what you quoted, and try to keep up. I don't really care if it's statements or beliefs we're talking about.

So then, what would make "X is immoral" false? — creativesoul

See, this is why you should learn the basics first. You don't need me for that.

Just answer the question.

"X is immoral relative to person A's moral belief" is false if person A believes X is moral.

"X is immoral" is false if...

S has got you by the short hairs. — Mww

You sure about that?

Just answer the question. — creativesoul

I will, but first, how much are you going to pay me for being your tutor? You're not asking me a question which you can't learn the answer to yourself by learning about moral relativism.

You sure about that? — creativesoul

Of course he is. You're no match for me. :sparkle: