henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm
Are you explicitly comfortable with eliminating all of that part of our moral discourse in order to preserve your argument?
Not tryin' to preserve anything. My position is clear, solid, and coherent. And: I'm not gonna be bulldogged into muddying the waters by declaring a mental deficiency as immoral.
In the nromal way we think and talk about what is right or wrong and moral or immoral, punching your dig and punching your wife are both immoral actions. Your division seems artificial and doesn't explain normal moral beliefs that nearly all of us share. You are casually eliminating all of this with very little explanation of why your reasoning is something more than an opinion. In fact none, you've just stated an opinion as a fact and left it at that.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm
The dog is not a person, it is still imoral to fuck it
Why? It's a sick act, yes, but why immoral? Explaining your take on morality is probably a good place to start.
Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns. This is why old rules about how hard a man should beat his wife when she talks too much are so absurd today.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm
A pond full of rare fish is not a person, it is still imoral to poison it
Why. It's a wasteful act, mebbe even a sick act, but why an immoral act?
Abuse of power perhaps. You must remember, I don't need to actually establish my thing as a moral fact because I am one of those nasty moral skeptics your momma warned you about. So for my purposes I need only come up with various examples of stuff that seems immoral, because morality and immorality is a seeming sort of thing to my team. Then we work out whether your moral fact thing is based on all moral judgments being either factual or mistaken, or whether you are doing that weak sauce version of the whole deal where some trivial two or three things are moral fact, but everything else is still fashion. Then we do the same to Veritas because he is going to panic and blurt something stupid, which is the fun part.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm
There is also nothing built into the concept of imorality that requires the other party to actually object.
Of course not, but it is tellin' that most the time people do object when mistreated. They understand they're bein' abused, that a moral wrong is being commited. Dumb animals, on the other hand, just lick up the peanut butter.
So it must be equally telling then if you punch your dog and he bites you.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:33 pm
I'm sorry Henry, but the whole thing makes less sense than you are thinking it does.
Oh, it makes perfect sense. As I say: my position is clear, solid, and coherent.
Well if we're just going to mark our own homework, my response was clear solid and coherent. And so it is a matter of opinion unless you are in the market for mutually exclusive but true 'facts'. Which, you know, it's a bit French and post-thingy but might work for you.