So first, re this whole tangent, it's trying to get a clarification. It's not even an attack.
Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Oh, you don't like the metaphorical use of "attack". OK. I'll Aspie-proof it for you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:03 pm So first, re this whole tangent, it's trying to get a clarification. It's not even an attack.
Did you not counter-argue? Challenge? Disagree? with the arguments presented.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
What arguments presented?Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:04 pmOh, you don't like the metaphorical use of "attack". OK. I'll Aspie-proof it for you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:03 pm So first, re this whole tangent, it's trying to get a clarification. It's not even an attack.
Did you not counter-argue? Challenge? Disagree? with the arguments presented.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
So now you are forgetful too? Or are you going to nit-pick (like an Aspie) that it "wasn't an argument" ?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
I'm trying to clarify what arguments you're referring to. Again, I was trying to get a clarification of Gewirth's argument. Are you referring to arguments presented a la Gewirth's argument?
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
I'll simplify...Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:08 pm I'm trying to clarify what arguments you're referring to. Again, I was trying to get a clarification of Gewirth's argument. Are you referring to arguments presented a la Gewirth's argument?
Do you agree or disagree with Gewirth? In the most general sense of agreement and disagreement.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
It seemed to me that Gewirth's argument was hinging on the notion that P and X are different, where this is a universal situation. If that's the case, then there is a problem with the argument (and I'd disagree with the argument), because in reality, P and X aren't different in every scenario.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:09 pmI'll simplify...Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:08 pm I'm trying to clarify what arguments you're referring to. Again, I was trying to get a clarification of Gewirth's argument. Are you referring to arguments presented a la Gewirth's argument?
Do you agree or disagree with Gewirth? In the most general sense of agreement and disagreement.
Veritas seemed to suggest that P and X aren't necessarily different in Gewirth's argument. So I was trying to clarify that Veritas was saying that Gewirth's argument would still work even if P and X are the same, and then I wanted him to explain how the argument would work if they're the same.
That's as far as we got, before (a) Veritas kept stalling with claims that I was misquoting Gewirth when I wasn't quoting him at all, and (b) you got involved and decided to entertain yourself with a bunch of irrelevant tangents.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Dear Slurpdick, I did not reluctanly concede such a thing. The presentation of oughts derived from goals posing as those derived from ISes has been a primary reason I have given for rejecting stupid is/ought arguments that Vestigial Aquafresh has been presenting for years.
Now seriously, fuck off.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
So what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm The presentation of oughts derived from goals posing as those derived from ISes has been a primary reason I have given for rejecting stupid is/ought arguments that Vestigial Aquafresh has been presenting for years.
Because you are doing the exact same thing!
You have a goal.
You have derived oughts from it.
And you are treating your ought as normative.
So what makes your oughts special?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
No one is claiming that we don't subjectively produce oughts--from goals as well as from other things.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:20 pmSo what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm The presentation of oughts derived from goals posing as those derived from ISes has been a primary reason I have given for rejecting stupid is/ought arguments that Vestigial Aquafresh has been presenting for years.
Because you are doing the exact same thing!
You have a goal.
You have derived oughts from it.
And you are treating your ought as normative.
So what makes your oughts special?
The issue is over whether any facts logically imply any oughts (which as mentioned earlier, is another way of saying that they necessarily follow from those facts), so that (a) it can be a fact that a particular ought follows from a particular is, and (b) we can get normatives wrong, in the sense of being informationally incorrect/inaccurate.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
This claim requires justification.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm It seemed to me that Gewirth's argument was hinging on the notion that P and X are different, where this is a universal situation. If that's the case, then there is a problem with the argument (and I'd disagree with the argument), because in reality, P and X aren't different in every scenario.
The notion of "every scenario" suggests different points in spatiotemporal space.
By your very own definition that's sufficient for difference.
How is this any different from what YOU suggested literally in the paragraph above?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm Veritas seemed to suggest that P and X aren't necessarily different in Gewirth's argument.
The way the argument would work is by direct implication of the Duhem-Quine thesis. By Confirmation holismTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm So I was trying to clarify that Veritas was saying that Gewirth's argument would still work even if P and X are the same, , and then I wanted him to explain how the argument would work if they're the same.
Any statement or argument can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system.
And IF you can envisage what needs to change in the semantics of the system to make the argument true then you would be that much closer to understanding Gewirth.
When you understand my "irrelevant" tangents are actually relevant (come what may) you will have understood my point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm That's as far as we got, before (a) Veritas kept stalling with claims that I was misquoting Gewirth when I wasn't quoting him at all, and (b) you got involved and decided to entertain yourself with a bunch of irrelevant tangents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold_come_what_may
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
So whatever we produce oughts from, those are not "IS-es"?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:24 pm No one is claiming that we don't subjectively produce oughts--from goals as well as from other things.
OH. Kay.
What are they?
There's about to be some woo woo mystery shit.
That entirely depends on whether you think mental states are facts or not.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:24 pm The issue is over whether any facts logically imply any oughts (which as mentioned earlier, is another way of saying that they necessarily follow from those facts), so that (a) it can be a fact that a particular ought follows from a particular is, and (b) we can get normatives wrong, in the sense of being informationally incorrect/inaccurate.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
I explained what I meant by it way back at the beginning, before you sidetracked us with all of this nonsense.
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
So the psychological gratification of helping people is not a reason?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.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
The "is" doesn't logically imply the "ought." 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).