Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:32 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:13 am
So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
At which point we should ask "Why?"
Why are you starting so many different threads about the same topic?
Especially given that when people respond to you, you have a tendency to refer them to other threads.
I am surprised you asked especially when this is a very contentious issue.
It is a question of efficiency in reference to specific posts to an important argument.
There are about 8 notable counter to the is-ought argument.
Can't you see the problem if I were to lump all of them into one thread of >30 pages then expected to refer to each specific argument when required to.
Most people on boards like this do not have jstor access, by the way. If a free version of the article isn't available and you want to talk about it on a board like this, you should at least summarize the argument.
Jstor give free reading of 100 articles during this pandemic period.
In any case, the proper referencing is a necessity as an intellectual protocol.
It is not easy to summarize the argument in many cases, where it is easy I will do so.
In case folks are interested, here's a freely available paper that summarizes Gewirth's argument (the summary begins on page 59):
https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi ... tations_mu
The problems with Gewirth's argument are legion, but begin at the very beginning: Gewirth says, "when we act, we do so for a purpose." That certainly is NOT universally the case. Whether this matters for Gewirth's argument is something we can talk about. Maybe someone could execute a workable version of the argument that starts with a premise such as "When Jones acts, he does so for a purpose," or "When some people act . . ."
We could pick Gewirth's argument apart step by step (and we could do so from the Stilley paper I linked to, so anyone interested can follow along), but I don't know how far we'll get with that. I'll start with what I said above.
I will study Stilley's paper.
There are also many others who countered Gewirth's argument and others.
The typical counter to the is-ought counter arguments is resorting to the rules and principles of classical logic, i.e. begging the question.
Point is classical logic is useful in some perspectives but it is very limited in other aspects and nuances of reality.
This is why modern logic, fuzzy logic, deviant logic, paraconsistent logic are necessary to generate various positive elements for humanity within the all of reality.
As Kant had stated, the advantage of logic is merely grounded on its limitation, i.e. relying on abstractions and universals rather than on specific realities of things.