Philosophy Now Forum

Have you even read his argument? How to be a Moral Realist? Boyd https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240034001_How_to_Be_a_Moral_Realist No. Your summary is enough to dismiss it. Or didn't you describe it correctly? In the intro for the paper Boyd wrote "It will not be my aim here to esta...

You've required us to assume that morality is subjective, and that having any authority behind morality makes it somehow not moral. But that's your key weakness: you need to prove those suppositions, not just to tell us to assume them, and then build your case out of them. Good luck with that. I've...

Another way to view this is to consider the very many ways in which philosophers have attempted to define the proper way to locate that which is morally desirable. There's usually a prima facie plausibility to the matter, and in general it is upon closer inspection that we find there is something im...

How does God know what's right or wrong? Does he know what objective property of a situation makes it right, or are we just elevating his opinions above those of Harbal because we think Harbal is smaller and therefore less important than God?

Atla's point about combining moral approaches into a convergent system merits more consideration. If we look at what Kant was doing when he systemised the synthetic a priori into being, it was to create order. This is why VA bangs on about Kant's supposed completeness; he arranges it such that every...

Imo bottom-up and top-down approaches to morality are both insufficient, they have to be combined into one system. That's probably the broad topic of Ch4 or Ch5. I haven't really dsecided what thing comes next yet but that's a stop along the way for sure. We need top-down restrictions like: let's n...

You are a sex tourist who rents wives. Of course you pay for everything.

Huh? There have been Empires that were not Monotheistic (Rome for the first 600 years, Egypt, Babylon and more). There have also been Empires with diverse religions (the Mongols, who had the largest empire of all time and adopted a variety of religions from their conquests). Of course all of these ...

A person can most definitely predict without knowing, there is an entire gambling industry predicated on exactly that. If his prediction were ever to be 100% guaranteed to be correct every time, as God's is, then it's certainly a form of knowing. There would be no important distinction between know...

You always have to explain everything to IC twice because he likes to leave the first explanation out of what he quotes and pretend it wasn't written. I don't think I've ever seen himn argue in good faith.

Actually, that's not the case. If, say, there are multiple possibilities or routes that one could choose, it makes no difference at all what God knows about that. Unless he's "rigging the game," you still get to make your choice, you still don't know which one you're going to choose, in a...

No, that's true. You're right...it didn't explicitly say that. But it assumes it. It assumes that prediction (which is a form of knowledge, obviously) entails predetermination (which entails the arranging or engineering of a result). That's what's called, "assuming the conclusion," and it...

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simpl...

Well, that sort of form, maybe...but the obvious error in premise 1 would make that syllogism invalid. It does not follow that God has to make things happen deterministically in order to foresee them, since seeing is not the same as making happen. So the amphiboly error that Harbal made would simpl...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 10:03 pm There are many specific reasons and causes why feeding heavily r-sexually selected people, does not work, does not produce the desired outcome. But that's for another time, perhaps, for those who are more *ehem* open-minded.

"r-sexually"?