Philosophy Now Forum

..... Can I take it from your evasion that you don't know which sort of statement that P2 was either? Nope! I am very determined to settle the point. That is why I am reading Rorty per your challenge and to throw back his views [if any] to counter your views. If I missed your point, its your miscom...

The notions of "sameness" and "difference" are normative/prescriptive... You tell me. Even if they were normative or prescriptive that wouldn't have anything to do with morality. It's not as if all normatives/prescriptives are moral. I agree with Skepdick's arguments above. Yes, not all normatives ...

I do not agree with your using strawman for Gewirth's argument. Gewirth did not use the term 'identical'. Holy moly. I'm not saying he used that term. I'm saying, that re Gewirth's argument, re "When we act (morally), we do X for purpose P" Either it's going to be the case that he's saying that P c...

Different people?? What is the question or confusion there? You stated; The problems are that: (1) Being mental phenomena, they're not objective in the sense of being person/mind/belief/bias/etc.-independent. (2) The contents of the normatives are not universal. Different people feel that different...

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if ...

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if e...

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if e...

Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. For example, the denial that there's a foundation for what we call truth and knowledge, like the denial that there are things-in-themselves, comes from anxiety over the loss of something we never had. It's entertaining a fantasy of a descriptio...

Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action. I was very precise in defining good and evil, right and wrong. The question which is left is that whether there is a universal criterion that allows us to judge the situation and choose between good and evi...

Just catching up on this discussion. In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong. Of course, you need to judge the situation in order to act. Judging is necessary for action. The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong...

Just catching up on this discussion. In my opinion, there are no morally right or wrong actions, but only actions that may be judged morally right or wrong. The modifiers '(morally) right', '(morally) wrong', 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' express opinions about something, such as an action. And that's ...

So it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical. In which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.) Okay. If the theists' god exists, and the thei...

I think you might not even need to employ this dichotomy. Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively. To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social...

Do you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote? The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could m...

William Lane Craig's half-dozen bad and repeatedly refuted - and tirelessly repeated - apologetic arguments for the existence of an invented god have nothing on VA's multitudinous OP attempts to establish moral objectivity. But spot the similarity.