Philosophy Now Forum

If it's a false dichotomy, you should have no problem at all showing that it is. Explain, then, why a subjectivist has any justification to condemn or advocate somebody else's actions, with no appeal to moral objectivity. You have a go. I cannot make your argument for you. I see its falsity. If it ...

Peddling the same false dichotomy, the same counterfeit coin. Boring. If it's a false dichotomy, you should have no problem at all showing that it is. Explain, then, why a subjectivist has any justification to condemn or advocate somebody else's actions, with no appeal to moral objectivity. You hav...

You'd better include more data, I would say. First, you'd have to know that the right solution for God to adopt would be to prevent all evil/wickedness/immorality from happening, before it could happen. That is, you'd have to know that a world with no evil in it was, in every way, preferable to one...

To repeat. IC's theistic moral objectivism amounts to the following valid syllogism. (IC likes syllogisms.) P1 If my team's god says X is morally right/wrong, then (it's a fact that) X is morally right/wrong. P2 My team's god says X is morally right/wrong. C Therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morall...

If I have the power to prevent an immoral/wicked/evil act, and I don't prevent it, then I am immoral/wicked/evil. And, of course, moral objectivists agree. But IC's team believes its god has that power - but worships it as the source of all goodness. Moral conclusion? You'd better include more data...

You insist my argument is realist[P] when to me it is not. Therefrom you rely on your misunderstanding to condemn what you think is my argument [i.e. p-realist]. If that is not a strawman fallacy, then what it is. No, I'm not distorting your argument. I'm showing why it is, in fact, philosophically...

Just come across 'Filos O'Fickle Papers' at Amazon - and I find I agree with almost everything in it.

If I have the power to prevent an immoral/wicked/evil act, and I don't prevent it, then I am immoral/wicked/evil. And, of course, moral objectivists agree. But IC's team believes its god has that power - but worships it as the source of all goodness. Moral conclusion? Good job IC's team's god is an ...

So. IC's team's god supposedly created and creates everything, including humans. And IC's team's god knows everything that will happen. So IC's team's god knows that quite a few of the human beings it supposedly creates will supposedly end up roasting in hell for all eternity, maybe just for the 'si...

Perhaps here's one form of the fallacy behind some forms of anti-realism: Each of us constructs reality 'in the mind', based on sense data. Therefore, reality is nothing more than each person's mental construct based on sense data. If it is, then the empiricist skepticism - and ultimately solipsism...

Perhaps here's one form of the fallacy behind some forms of anti-realism: Each of us constructs reality 'in the mind', based on sense data. Therefore, reality is nothing more than each person's mental construct based on sense data. If it is, then the empiricist skepticism - and ultimately solipsism ...

Strawman. Re W's language game principle, there no element of 'play per se'. It is just the game merely emerged spontaneously via human interactions in the case as in PI and On Certainty. W use the example of builders [construction] with their specific terminology. Where games are used literally, t...

Morality is off topic to the original point. What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis of objectivity within a FSRC. It has to be a FSRC and nothing else. Once again, notice the contradiction. You agree that humans 'play' language games; ...

Off topic. I have argued elsewhere ... That is your problem. Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit Morality is off topic to the original point. What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis...

You don't answer my questions, so here they are again: If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and...