Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:33 pm What I'm referring to is this: As an example, say that the moral action in question (X in Gewirth) is helping an elderly person cross an intersection. Well, on some occasions where a person does that (or any example we might come up with), the reason behind it (P in Gewirth) is the same as the action--helping an elderly person cross an intersection in this case. In other words, in some cases, individuals have no reason behind a moral action aside from the action itself.
So the psychological gratification of helping people is not a reason?
It depends on the exact scenario at hand. In some cases, the only "reason" behind the action is the action itself, and there's nothing else to it.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm The "is" doesn't logically imply the "ought.
That use of the adjective "logically" depends on which logic you use.

In imperative logic it is implied.
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm " That is, the "ought" doesn't necessarily follow from the "is." It's not the case that we can get the "ought" wrong (in the sense of informationally incorrect or inaccurate).
This is circular. You have some standards/values/oughts pertaining to "incorrectness" and "inaccuracies"

But like Flash Dangergork you are going to resort to special pleading now and insist that those are not moral values. Those are just values.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
Would you say that purpose and goal mean approximately the same thing if you are not an aspie?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm The "is" doesn't logically imply the "ought.
That use of the adjective "logically" depends on which logic you use.

In imperative logic it is implied.
That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm " That is, the "ought" doesn't necessarily follow from the "is." It's not the case that we can get the "ought" wrong (in the sense of informationally incorrect or inaccurate).
This is circular.
It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:39 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
Would you say that purpose and goal mean approximately the same thing if you are not an aspie?
Conventionally they often "mean" the same thing, sure.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
OK.

The imperative "Alexa, turn on the light" is reified via logic.

I say it - and the lights turn on.

Ought -> IS.
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.
I didn't say it's an argument. I am saying that the statement is circular either way.

Is circularity a double-standard which only applies to arguments, but not to regular language?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
OK.

The imperative "Alexa, turn on the light" is reified via logic.

I say it - and the lights turn on.

Ought -> IS.
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.
I didn't say it's an argument. I am saying that the statement is circular either way.
Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:46 pm Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?
When did you stop raping children?
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:46 pm Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?
When did you stop raping children?
So yes
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm So yes
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Confirmation bias in FULL swing.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm So yes
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Confirmation bias in FULL swing.
The tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm So yes
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Confirmation bias in FULL swing.
The tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
I am repeating myself.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:27 pm When you understand my "irrelevant" tangents are actually relevant (come what may) you will have understood my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold_come_what_may
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm The tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
Which part of abstraction, sameness and difference do you not understand?

Anything is different to anything else, except for their similarities.
Anything is the same as anything else, except for their differences.

If you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is different" then sameness requires justification.
if you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is the same" then difference requires justification.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Confirmation bias in FULL swing.
The tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
I am repeating myself.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:27 pm When you understand my "irrelevant" tangents are actually relevant (come what may) you will have understood my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold_come_what_may
This is the problem with commenting too much. I gave you other stuff to troll about instead of waiting for you to just comment on "It depends on the exact scenario at hand. In some cases, the only 'reason' behind the action is the action itself, and there's nothing else to it" . . . one reason I added more was anticipation of an Aspieish interpretation of "reason."
Post Reply