Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm It depends on the value of the outcome. People who search for gold or diamonds "seldom" find them. But the surpassing value of what they seek, as they see it, makes their search worth their time.

That's a terrible analogy. If you want diamonds - you would at least survey the site you are digging at.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm But "seldom" was your word, not mine. And seeking is a continuum, not merely a conclusion point.

So you are saying it's not about the diamonds, it's about the dig?

Why don't you dig for limestone then? It's still digging.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Of course. But that's irrelevant to the question of which KIND of future consideration the IS-OUGHT relates to. It only relates to the moral future.

It's irrelevant because you just admitted that ALL kinds of future considerations relate to OUGHTS.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Sometimes simplicity is clarity. Sometimes it's not...sometimes, it's just simplistic or oversimplification.

Seeming as you just keep adding more and more categories for no good reason, it seems like an over-complication to me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm "If it IS the case that you want to visit Madagascar, you OUGHT to take an airplane."

Sorry. That doesn't work. I don't want to visit Madagascar. OUGHT I want to visit Madagascar?

And even if I wanted to, why OUGHT it be an airplane? Why OUGHT it not be some other mode of transport?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm That is, you don't have to, and you won't be immoral if you don't. It's just the most instrumental means to your goal, presuming that's your goal.

Which part wanting (or not wanting) to visit Madagascar is "instrumental" exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Factual wrongness, instrumental wrongness, or moral wrongness?

ALL of them. Wrongness as an unequivocated whole.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Here are examples of the above. Factual wrongness: "The capital city of the UK is Durham."

What a silly way to equivocate. Is just a mistake. It's not wrong to make mistakes, is it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Instrumental wrongness: "Here's a cooper's hammer; use it to repair that wristwatch."

What's wrong with that? If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Moral wrongness: rape.

That's the first time you haven't equivocated yourself....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm It depends on the value of the outcome. People who search for gold or diamonds "seldom" find them. But the surpassing value of what they seek, as they see it, makes their search worth their time.

That's a terrible analogy.

It's the best you're going to get.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Of course. But that's irrelevant to the question of which KIND of future consideration the IS-OUGHT relates to. It only relates to the moral future.

It's irrelevant because you just admitted that ALL kinds of future considerations relate to OUGHTS.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Sometimes simplicity is clarity. Sometimes it's not...sometimes, it's just simplistic or oversimplification.

Seeming as you just keep adding more and more categories for no good reason, it seems like an over-complication to me.

Simplistic.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:47 pm Factual wrongness, instrumental wrongness, or moral wrongness?

ALL of them. Wrongness as an unequivocated whole.

It's not "a whole." It's a combination of possible implications, which on is apt being determined by context.