Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: 'Here is an objective moral fact: Peter Holmes does not want to be kicked in the testicles.' That I don't want to be kicked in the testicles is a fact - a true factual assertion. It isn't a moral assertion of any kind. You are confused. A moral assertion might be: it is wrong to kick pe...

Here's a fact.

You can't produce a moral fact - an assertion that makes a factual claim about a feature of reality - and show why or how it does so.

So you are wrong to claim that morality is objective. Your moral objectivism is a mistake.

There are countless different ways of describing things No. There are countless different ways to describe the various aspects of things. within which we can make factual assertions with truth-value. No, you can't. Any more than you can be 1.87 meters tall from one perspective and 2.57 meters tall ...

QED. You claim your use of 'orbit' is the most precise and unambiguous. But on what grounds? On the grounds of it being a universal, unambiguous and precise definition. So you haven't thought it through yet again. You are tiresome. There is no universal, unambiguous and precise perspective from whi...

But here's a dictionary definition of orbit: 'the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.' So your reference to a geometrical point is spurious. And your claim of 'precision' and 'greater truth' belies your perspect...

Logik wrote: 'The reason why "Earth orbits the Sun" is problematic is because "orbits" is ambiguous. "to orbit" means - to revolve around a point in space. The Sun is not a point - it's a sphere. The difference between a point and a sphere is that a point has no volume.' But here's a dictionary defi...

I'm newly puzzled by the incoherence of your argument. I don't know what you mean by the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' and their cognates. I don't know if you think there can be any such things as truth, facts and objectivity - and from what perspective you reject them, if you do. I don't...

Logik wrote: 'It doesn’t matter if “objective morality” has truth value if said “truth value” changes by merely shifting one’s perspective! I am X meters tall. There is no perspective from which this number changes! Therefore it is objective. There is a perspective from which the Earth does, and a p...

Blah, blah, blah one last time, I hope.

Blah, blah, blah, again.

You are grasping at straws now. I get it yet you don’t agree. I am presenting you you with a hypothetical. If it were a factual claim it would be both right and wrong. Exactly like the Earth does and does not orbit the Sun. 1 I assume that by 'right and wrong' you mean 'true and false'. So we're ba...

Yet another deflection. Pretend for 3 seconds that objectivity has been established on the grounds of facts. You would find yourself in a situation where murder is wrong from one perspective and right from anoter. I refuse to believe that is your conception of “objective moral truth”. If you were t...

I wrote a long post and then I realized it's a mistake to let you frame the discussion with small-minded thinking so I deleted it. You are deflecting and ignoring the elephant in the room. Until you address this problem with your perspective, the rest is moot: You seem to accept both of the above a...

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry - wrestling with the system here.

(blah blah blah) I wrote a long post and then I realized it's a mistake to let you frame the discussion with small-minded thinking so I deleted it. You are deflecting and ignoring the elephant in the room. Until you address this problem with your perspective, the rest is moot: A Heliocentrist claim...