FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 1:30 pm
Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 12:57 pm
So have we decided the
best way to say moral realism is bullshit yet?
Pete has a way of putting it that gets the job done in one sentence...
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am
Meanwhile, the fact that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion demolishes the case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.
It's hard to argue that my long winded approach brings any particular advantage over that.
I don't understand why this clown is victoriously beating his own chest.
What "advantage" is he pointing at?
What was the job? Why does he think the job is "done"?
He appears to be playing some game, by some rules that only he is aware of. Almost like he's marking his own homework.
From where I am looking at Peter Holmes self-destructed.
"The fact that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion demolishes the case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.", he says!
Well that's just begging the question.
If that's a factual claim then... produce those facts. Or are you just pretending that your logical normatives are facts?
Ya fucking (self)deceptive cunts are just peddling an appeal to authority. The lot of you.