If I thought any of that was true I would happily admit it. So take one of those, and in a complete though, that shows you actually took a second to understand the point I am making, show my error I will be happy to admit error if you show it. — Rank Amateur
You make a claim, I challenge you to defend it, you dodge. Rinse repeat, normal interaction with you. Just stop with the tactics please. — Rank Amateur
what I am saying is there is a truth about murder being good or bad, right or wrong. — Rank Amateur
We can disagree what the truth is, but it is important if both parties believe there is a truth. — Rank Amateur
If we don't believe there actually is a truth, it is just preference. — Rank Amateur
Then we can see if we think that truth is different than opinion. — Rank Amateur
I care because the whole point of doing philosophy is to get right what the world is like. — Terrapin Station
Not so agreed. The non-assignment of a truth value does not validate a preference. If I say I don’t hold with x being true or not true, doesn’t imply I prefer one over the other. I could just be logically indifferent, or, in some typically empirical cases, unknowledgable. Still, a moral agent will not be indifferent, even if the logical possibility exists. — Mww
And because we remain in the purely logical, hence a priori domain, we are still being subjective. It also explains why you were given an comment (it is true murder is good/bad, right/wrong) that didn’t properly refer to the antecedent (there is a truth about murder being good/bad, right/wrong).
Best paragraph I’ve had to work with in days, so......thanks for that. — Mww
For some reason you thought I said murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate — Rank Amateur
And you called that a false equivalence. — Rank Amateur
My point was, and is... — Rank Amateur
There are somethings that are true
I propose it is true that murder is wrong — Rank Amateur
There are two people, like yourself believe moral judgments are mostly subjective
One says, to me, my moral relative thought is murder is wrong.
The other says, my moral relative thought is murder is fine.
Both tell each other they disagree with the other one.
If you believe there is a possible truth about the moral nature of murder they both
Can not be right. — Rank Amateur
And if you believe in mostly subjectivity, there is no standard to judge
If wrong. — Rank Amateur
If it is not right or wrong, it is just different. Like the choice of vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur
I have no issue with the moral relativist as long as they acknowledge they lose the right to judge the moral judgments of others. — Rank Amateur
You are incapable of dialogue, because you exercise no effort in understanding the other opinion. — Rank Amateur
Ok, if you do not believe there are any truth statements we can make about the rightness or wrongness of murder, we just disagree.
Then whatever my personal judgment on the topic is, you can disagree with, but have to accept as just as morally valid as yours — Rank Amateur
No! The whole point of philosophy is to get right what it means for us to be us, and to be in the world as us as we are and can be. — tim wood
If I have that right, than what makes any thoughts about a moral stance any more than a preference by the thinker of one over another stance — Rank Amateur
as long as they acknowledge this entails allowing the different moral views of others without any value judgments. — Rank Amateur
You can have subjective but then all you can have is different not better not worse. — Rank Amateur
I think that you, Tim, and Vagabond Spectre have been suggesting ad hominems.... Some of the key fallacious suggestions from you three have been that us moral relativists are trivialising important matters, — S
This is easily resolved in favour of the sceptic of moral absolutism, rather than the proponent of moral absolutism. One could just retract the stronger claim that nothing is absolutely right or wrong, and instead just point out that there seems to be no credible evidence or reasonable argument in favour of moral absolutism, only dogmatism and bad logic. — S
Moreover, whether or not everyone benefits from his argument is irrelevant. Why do you keep confronting people like myself and Terrapin Station with irrelevancies, as though they are not irrelevancies? Are you so eager to attack our position that you're not thinking things through properly? It has seemed that way from the very beginning. You seem to have few qualms about throwing the logic rulebook out of the window if it seems to you that by doing so you'll gain the upper hand over your moral relativist opponents. — S
Because, from my point of view, morality is inherent in man. — Brett
It is a real shame that Tim's reply completely ignores your explanation and jumps straight into a question about your answer full of his own implicit misguided assumptions. What he's really asking is, "Do you really believe that, given all of my misguided assumptions, and completely disregarding the explanation you've put time and effort into producing?". Isn't philosophy supposed to encourage critical thinking and open-mindedness? — S
How reason? Kant mapped this territory. If I suppose murder at all right, then implicitly I consent to murder. Ultimately as a matter of reason to my own murder. If I qualify that to exclude my own murder, then presumably everyone can make the same exception. In addition there are notions of stealing, and of taking life, equally non-reasonable. And so the argument spins. Is Kant water-tight on this all the way out to the edges and corners? This amounts to the question of whether anything underpins reason. Kant indeed has values. But I think his effort of tailoring the fit of values and reason is more than adequate. — tim wood
In sum, reason can and does give us absolutes. At the same time reason makes rigorous demands in the expression of those absolutes. Thus, "You shall not kill," correctly seems problematic as over and against the more precise, "You shall not murder." — tim wood
I sum, I hold the argument against the possibility of moral absolutes as an argument against reason in favour of psychology. Psychology has its uses, but it's not reason nor a substitute for it. — tim wood
Do you hold that 2+2=4 is absolutely true as a matter of reason? — tim wood
For you we'll go very simple. Do you hold that 2+2=4 is absolutely true as a matter of reason? Or true only as a matter of opinion, of psychology, and thus true for some folks and not true for others? — tim wood
But does all morality find its ground in morality? Morality as psychology? Or morality as reason? Clearly the expression of much morality is in such terms as to make it seem psychological. "Should" is a convenient and easy enough argument, and easy enough to swallow, if it must be swallowed. It seems to me, though, that it all originates in reason. Not temporally; not first reason then practice. People do not usually work that way. But as a matter of logically priority. Experience, then reflection on that experience to unearth basic principles, reasons. Thus, to Brett, (human) morality comes into being in man, but is grounded in reason. — tim wood
I wanna play!!!!
Yes, I hold 2 + 2 = 4 is absolutely true. As a matter of reason. No, not as a matter of opinion, psychology, and whether others hold with it is up to them.
Now what? — Mww
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.