Philosophy Now Forum

The demand isn't "self-defeating." The inability of subjectivism to make even one cogent claim about morality would be subjectivism-defeating. You can't salvage a viewpoint that cannot even say one thing...on measely thing...about the subject upon which it claims to speak . :shock: Moral ...

Silence. All Peter has is dead silence. For there is not even one single moral precept that a moral subjectivist must necessarily believe. Not even one. That would be an objective precept, making your demand self defeating. The demand isn't "self-defeating." The inability of subjectivism ...

VA could win all of those debates he's chosen there and it would do him no good at all. His argument depends on natural limits (no perfect circle can be drawn in a universe of squiggly atoms and so on) and fallaciously applies them to supernatural entities. The argument is of a structure that can ne...

Silence. All Peter has is dead silence. For there is not even one single moral precept that a moral subjectivist must necessarily believe. Not even one. That would be an objective precept, making your demand self defeating. For about the 90th time, it is not a viable strategy to argue that subjecti...

You misread me. Common sense and basic precepts of sanity all agree that murder being wrong is not an entailment of today not being Wednesday. If you credit Hume with being the source of that information, then common sense agrees with Hume. You'll have to get by with that for now, you can have new a...

Did you ever work out what Pete means those thousand times he's told you that a factual premise cannot entail a moral conclusion? It's a restatement of Hume. It's not a re-statement of Hume. It's a presumption and acceptance of Hume's prescriptive claim. Here's a factual premise which entails a mor...

Did you ever work out what Pete means those thousand times he's told you that a factual premise cannot entail a moral conclusion?
It's a restatement of Hume.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:09 am This is what Hume 'No Is from Ought' is about, i.e. enforcing 'ought' from a third party to individual[s] as in theism or political laws.

No it isn't. You should read it again, and concentrate on the copulation of propositions until you get it.

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition. That depends on how they explain the deity as the source of the info about rigth and wrong. For a simple divine command theory, in which God's opinion is the best because God is the biggest and s...

Is it wise to feed his mania? I can't imagine it going hungry. Fair comment. But he's already struggling to internalise the notion that morality can work as a simple set of human practices and doesn't need to be written in tablets of stone somewhere in the sky. Further to that, he cannot at all com...

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition. That depends on how they explain the deity as the source of the info about rigth and wrong. For a simple divine command theory, in which God's opinion is the best because God is the biggest and s...

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't... You can't. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. This contrasts with Christian morality, according to which a human sacrifice will absolv...

At this point, any concept - idealism, realism, philosophical, transcendental, empirical, noumena, phenomena, thing-in-itself, negative, positive, real, solipsistic, mind, dependent, independent, external, subjective, objective, fact, etc. - can mean anything we want , as long as they agree with wh...

At this point, any concept - idealism, realism, philosophical, transcendental, empirical, noumena, phenomena, thing-in-itself, negative, positive, real, solipsistic, mind, dependent, independent, external, subjective, objective, fact, etc. - can mean anything we want , as long as they agree with wh...

What happened there is that VA gave a text generation engine extensive coaching in how to generate text that he would like, and then the engine generated a text that he likes.

No philosophy occurred at all. VA has to stop using AI, he thinks it is magic.