When push comes to shove, of course you do, but in a forum thread you can say pretty well whatever you like. — Wayfarer
But of course, you are probably manifesting rhetorical posturing rather than sociopathy. — Banno
Psychopaths feel no compunction about killing and it is known that psychopathology is common in society. So, have you considered the possibility that you’re a psychopath? — Wayfarer
Following a rule to ensure survival isn't the same as the proposition "we ought not kill" being true -- or is it? When we say that "we ought not kill" is true, are we just saying that we choose not to kill as it's in our best interests not to? I don't think that's what the moral realist means. — Michael
The scientific method isn't "true" in the sense that we're using the word "true". We're using it in the sense of the truth-aptness of a proposition. — Michael
When I asked how to show that an ethical system is true or false I am asking how to verify or falsify the claims "we ought act only according to that maxim whereby we can will that it should become a universal law" or "we ought maximize happiness and well-being." — Michael
What exactly are the truth conditions for this being true? — Banno
A particular kind of physical object standing in a particular kind of spatial relationship to another particular kind of physical object. I can recognise the occurrence of this state of affairs and so know what to look for to verify or falsify the claim. — Michael
See the way you slid from the truth conditions to the justification for your belief? — Banno
I didn't. The truth condition is the physical state of the world, — Michael
Let me help you out: "a cat is on the mat" will be true if and only if a cat is on the mat.
Do you agree? If not, then exactly what physical state is it you are looking for? — Banno
And the same for a claim such as "2 + 2 = 4". I know how to count to verify or falsify your claim. — Michael
See the way you slid from the truth conditions to the justification for your belief?
— Banno
I didn't. — Michael
A particular kind of physical object standing in a particular kind of spatial relationship to another particular kind of physical object. I can recognise the occurrence of this state of affairs and so know what to look for to verify or falsify the claim. — Michael
That's not a recognisable physical state though, is it. — Banno
But you baulk at the truth conditions for "it's bad to molest children" being that it is bad to molest children?
Sure, there is no empirical evidence that one ought not lie. Nor is it derived from first principles. But why should we suppose that these two exhaust all the possibilities? Why shouldn't different propositions have different ways of being found true or false?Is there empirical evidence that we ought not lie? Can we derive from first principles that we ought not kill? Do we even understand what it means for a moral proposition to be true if we can't even conceive of what would verify or falsify it? — Michael
Sure, there is no empirical evidence that one ought not lie. Nor is it derived from first principles. But why should we suppose that these two exhaust all the possibilities? Why shouldn't different propositions have different ways of being found true or false? — Banno
They're the only two way that I know of. — Michael
And again, I think you do know what it means when someone say "you ought not kill", wether you can cite the truth conditions or not. — Banno
I'm partial to Anscombe's analysis: "[the] word 'ought'… a word of mere mesmeric force.… a word retaining the suggestion of force, and apt to have a strong psychological effect, but which no longer signifies a real concept at all." — Michael
But as far as I'm aware that we ought not kill isn't a recognisable physical state — Michael
Truth seems to necessitate existence-conditions upon statements whereby the truth of a statement is contingent upon existing; whereas facts can obtain their truth-making relations with a statement whether or not the facts exist. Facts can be a thing that exists in the world, such as an object; or, on the other hand, facts can exist in a subset of possible worlds, such as an abstract entity.
— Cartesian trigger-puppets
Interesting. I tend to define the two terms more or less the opposite way. — Echarmion
2 What is the case — a fact — is the existence of states of affairs.
2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects
(things).
2.0122 Things are independent in so far as they can occur in all possible situations, but this form of independence is a form of connexion with
states of affairs, a form of dependence.
2.02 Objects are simple.
2.021 Objects make up the substance of the world. That is why they cannot be composite.
2.0211 If the world had no substance, then whether a proposition had sense would depend on whether another proposition was true.
2.0212 In that case we could not sketch any picture of the world (true or false).
2.024 Substance is what subsists independently of what is the case.
2.0271 Objects are what is unalterable and subsistent; their configuration is what is changing and unstable.
2.0272 The configuration of objects produces states of affairs.
2.03 In a state of affairs objects fit into one another like the links of a chain.
3.203 A name means an object. The object is its meaning. — Wittgenstein
I want you to realize that when I speak of a fact I do not mean a particular existing thing, such as Socrates or the rain or the sun. Socrates himself does not render any statement true or false. What I call a fact is the sort of thing that is expressed by a whole sentence, not by a single name like ‘Socrates.’ . . .We express a fact, for example, when we say that a certain thing has a certain property, or that it has a certain relation to another thing; but the thing which has the property or the relation is not what I call a ‘fact. — Bertrand Russell
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.