Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 11:45 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 7:53 pm Did Vegitariantaxidermy die and become the new voice in Fishpie's head?

Haha!!

I miss Veg, especially being slagged off by her (what a turn on) - she was the most intelligent woman on the forum.

Wait, what? This Accelafine personisn't just VT in a new frock?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 7:08 am I think Kant would be an indirect realist too today. Even someone as smug as he wouldn't be able to ignore the mountain of evidence for this view.

You have to explicitly tell VA that you are re-using his Hume is/ought argument to mock him. He's too autistic to just pick up on that as subtext.

Did Vegitariantaxidermy die and become the new voice in Fishpie's head?

Okay, let's do it then. You could start by explaining what you think morality actually is. Funny...that's exactly the first question I was going to put to you. So I agree: let's start there. I have some idea of what "morality" means. You have none I can identify. So help me out here. Let'...

BDM or BDSM . I cannot believe that there could ever be a reliable set of objective criteria for human morality. What you might try to a simple set of basic suggestions to help you cope with, live with, exist with fellow humans. And another set of warnings that, even when people agree to the rules,...

Part 1: Continued rambling preambling (Skip this if you don't like long posts) This is a continuation of a very sensible effort to construct a moral-KFC-Bucket-Thing that is less shit than the morality-proper-KFC that VA has been serving up for a decade or so, and in so doing, perhaps we might also...

I wonder what Peter Singer would say about the "objectivity" (or otherwise) of morality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA 1. Are we all evil so long as one person in this world dies from something the rest of us could have easily prevented without significant negative consequen...

science-evolutionary_biology-evolutionary_psychology-neurosciences FSERC

lol

The fact is your realism view is a primal and primitive view driven by an evolutionary default, thus supported by the majority. It seems you are wrong on the grounds that too many people agree with you, Peter. :) The keen observer of KFC theory would note that this entails that Pete's KFC-bucket ha...

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer. P2 We ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer. C Therefore, there are moral facts. Strawman, if you are referring to my argument. Here is my argument is full P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no li...

This shit doesn't even begin to resemble a philosophical argument, it reads like a poorly written political speach on behalf of some political party. You should delete it out of shame.

That's a good point. If you don't mind, I'll nick it and amend this section. That permission is always granted. Note also the bit where he wrote "Therefore moral objectivity is inherent critical for moral progress within humanity", demonstrating the logically invalid ought-to-is direction...

Reasons for moral objectivism I suggest that moral objectivism – belief that there are moral facts – has two main sources, as follows. Many or most of us care - even deeply - about our moral values, judgements and opinions. They form an important part of our lives and attitudes towards how we and o...

The Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics , logic, and metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy With philosophy we cannot be too loose, but it is critical to establish objectivity for the above major branches of philosophy so it will not be a free for all. The ought-to-i...

When I mocked him he put me straight on ignore, and he won't even acknowledge my existence any more. I can still mock him, of course, but it's just not as much fun without his angry response. :( I wonder why he hasn't done the same to you. He's called me evil and put me on his ultra-triple ignore p...