If some kind of objective morality is said to exist, then it would simultaneously constitute an 'is' and an 'ought'. It would constitute a fact about the world; a fact which tells us how to morally conduct ourselves. It would straddle the is/ought gap and in doing so provide us with a set of oughts from a description of what is. In other words, there would be no is/ought problem.

This likely goes some way to explaining why so many believe that the is/ought gap does prevent an objective morality: we currently have no evidence that such a moral 'is' exists, and without it we cannot derive a universal ought.

I agree with the argument but I don't understand what he means by ultimate moral responsibility. As opposed to non-ultimate moral responsibility? What is that?

I am a hott super adept female philosopher. I have a paper published in a philosophy journal: https://independent.academia.edu/TinaAnderson19

Also I can humiliate and destroy almost anyone in debate. Here is my Youtube channel and social media https://www.youtube.com/c/GodlessGirl
https://linktr.ee/Godless

There is no difficulty justifying one's rational beliefs, at least on principle. And if our beliefs turn out to be false, we just adopt different beliefs. This is the way science works. We started with simple theories and we just adopted new theories to accommodate discoveries that falsified our initial theories.

We have a long experience now of scientific theories being falsified and replaced by what we see as better theories. We also all have first hand experience of having our personal beliefs being falsified again and again. But we are never short on new beliefs to replace them and in any case we don't know how to know the world. We just keep going regardless just because we can.

Nobody can justify that science is knowledge but there is no difficulty articulating a good justification that science is our best belief. And if that is not even true, then we may have to change our belief at some point in the future. Meanwhile, we will keep relying on science.

The solution to the Münchhausen trilemma is simple. We just have to admit that we don't know what we don't know. And I think we can all live with the fact that we still won't be able to justify that we know what we do know.

Epiphenominalists are often trying to accommodate scientific facts without discarding the reality of the mind. Various things happen that do not accord with the folk-psychology that all immediate experience must be shaped the way we generally discuss it in words. Instead, it is partly conditioned by the existence of words, and their purpose.

Most theologians adopt 1), and assert God is the sole exception to everything needing a cause. As a argument strategy -- this is flawed, as non-theists are free to propose exceptions to causation of their own -- the favorite is the Universe -- but a time-space probability field, or an Eternally Inflating state -- these have both been proposed as well. Stephen Hawking took this approach in A Brief History of Time -- where he proposed a single cycle universe was just a closed volume in space-time and did not need a causal explanation. In more recent writing, now that the openness of our universe has been fairly well settled and his "closed shape" assumption isn't true, he advocated that the small size of the initial Big Bang singularity mixes time and space per Heseinberg's Uncertaintly Principle -- and without a well defined "first time" -- the "prior" to that time need not be explained.

Empiricism' has as many meanings as there are empiricists. But if we take empiricism as the view that all knowledge derives ultimately from sense experience, which has some claims to be the standard view, there is no inconsistency in recognising a role for reason. We can reason about what we derive from experience. For instance, without experience we would not know what a colour is or know that red, green and blue are colours. However, given our experience of colours we can deduce that if X is red then X is coloured. We can recognise logical relations between concepts, in other words.

In virtue of what are those properties bundled?

Well in a bunch of different ways. For one you are inferring from past experiences that cause and effect is the case and everything that occurs isn't just random. You see the tree move forward and then feel pain you are inferring that the tree caused it.

I don't think anyone has any propositional knowledge if you define knowledge as justified true belief (I can add to that to avoid Gettier) All justification is going to require an inference and you cannot know that your reasoning is reliable without relying on your reasoning which would be begging the question.

I think a "thought" should have to be propositional

Dennett is insane. I once heard him say there is no hard problem of consciousness because consciousness doesn't exist lol

First off I dont even understand how you get from "thoughts exist therefore a self exists" What is the self? What is there besides the thoughts and experience? You assert there is something else but what is it? Maybe it's the case that just the thoughts exist.

We might be talking past each other with solipsism. I just mean the position that you can never know if any other minds or a material world exist. I dont see an argument for being able to know Descartes demon doesn't exist.

What are you saying the solipsist is certain of what? That they exist? That doubt exists? So what? That doesn't mean they are certain that they aren't in the matrix.

Doubt doesn't presuppose you aren't a solipsist. You could be in the matrix and be doubting things right?

Well, yes just as the fact that I am doubting cannot be proven false or analogously the cogito ergo sum entails that existence is a prerequisite for the statement to even be plausible. Conversely what would the contrapositive even mean in that case? — Wallows

You seem to be strawmanning me. I am not proposing a contrapositive for your belief that you exist and doubt. I am saying you do not have justification that the external material world exists. There is no observation that is inconsistent with Descarte's demon being the case.

You are contradicting yourself. Before you asserted that belief in the external material world was warranted and now you are saying it cannot be proven false.

In order to know something you have to know that the contrary is impossible.

How could you justifiy your belief in the external material world without begging the question?

Am I correct that there is also global skepticism which would be in between solipsism and epistemological nihilism?

Effects by definition are caused.

Yes. So what?

I don't see how this is a response to my objection.

It also appears to me that you think God exists but you just don’t like him. — Brett

I agree that this is what @Gnostic Christian Bishop is saying.

Also God might have morally justified reasons for these actions that your limited, fallible, finite mind doesn't have access to.

Therefore, if one can doubt when confronted with any skeptical argument, then that implies that knowledge is possible, and that we don't live in a solipsistic world. — Wallows

I don't see how that follows. If your belief that the external material world existed was false then you wouldn't be able to have doubts and knowledge would be impossible?

That's not being free in any interesting sense. Somebody acting on their intentions doesn't make them blameworthy and praiseworthy for their actions.

Also they aren't making a "choice" if the actions is determined. If it's determined then they couldn't have done otherwise and choice implies their was more than one option.

Uh...if god's thoughts do not occur in succession that means he doesn't change his belief about what time it currently is. He is omniscient but he doesn't know what time it is? LOL!!!

It isn't a strawman. I am merely pointing out the problem with omnipotence. It is NOT logically impossible to make a stone so heavy you cannot lift it. A human can do it. So you are saying an all powerful god cannot do what a human can do. That god is limited by it's nature but it's still omnipotent? By that definition any being that can do anything that is in it's nature to do is omnipotent. I point you to Plantinga's argument McEar. The only thing in McEar's nature to do is scratch his ear and he is able to do that so by your definition he is omnipotent. That is silly.

1) It isn't a strawman. I am merely pointing out the problem with "omnipotence" It is logically possible to make a stone so heavy you cannot lift it. A human can do it. So you are saying god cannot do what a human can but god is infinitely powerful? LOL! When you say god cannot do it because his omnipotence would make it a contradiction you are saying that god is limited by his nature. So I point you to Plantinga's McEar argument (you seem like somebody who has never heard any of the arguments against their position). If what omnipotent means to you is that god can do anything that is in his nature to do then a being who the only thing in it's nature to do was scratch it's ear and it was able to scratch it's ear then by your definition it is omnipotent. LOL!

Yeah so do you have a response?

Why? There are lots of reasons. I will give you 2 for now.

1)Omnipotence alone is incoherent because of the omnipotence paradox. Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

2) Omnipotence and omniscience together is impossible. If the god knows every true proposition about the future then he already knows everything he will do and cannot do otherwise. The omnipotent being cannot does not have the power to do anything different in the future then he already believes he will do.

If you think you have a refutation to either of these I will be happy to crush you.

I think I would consider myself an agnostic with regards to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator of the cosmos.

A god with the 4 omnis is a logically incoherent concept. It is impossible for it to exist so it is silly to be "agnostic" about it. You can make the positive claim that it doesn't exist. I see atheists all the time retreating to calling themselves "agnostics" because they are afraid to defend their position.