Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

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
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Flash

Post by henry quirk »

If morality is only about man's intent ... other men, then it follows that nothing at all that we do to animals is immoral.

Exactly. We can be cruel to dumb animals, which may be a psych issue, but it ain't a moral issue.


However, you ran out of moral facts real fast when you went with that "if". Surely what morality is about ought to be a matter of fact.

Not really. It's just a turn of phrase. like when 6 year old Jim asks his dad can I go play in the rain? and his dad replies if it's rainin' what you should wear?. If is introductory.


While we are on the subject, it is sort of a thing about facts that a person can examine them and reach a grounded conclusion such that others who disagree are just demonstrably wrong. A signature feature of opinion on the other hand is that people need persuading. The signature of custom, etiquette and fashion is that people tend to go with what they have seen others do. It sure seems like morality lies in one of those latter categories to me.

A great deal of what is called morality is just that, but a a man belongs to himself is fact and it's wrong to leash a man is the moral fact derived from the fact.

More formally: a person belongs to himself therefore it is wrong to treat him as property or resource.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Flash

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:38 pm If morality is only about man's intent ... other men, then it follows that nothing at all that we do to animals is immoral.

Exactly. We can be cruel to dumb animals, which may be a psych issue, but it ain't a moral issue.
That seems excessively eliminative. Rmour has it that there are people who, in the privacy of their own homes, and without harming another man's property in any way, slather their own junk in peanut butter and get the family dog to lick it off. I'm not convinced we can have any full description of morality that doesn't treat this is a moral wrong.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:38 pm However, you ran out of moral facts real fast when you went with that "if". Surely what morality is about ought to be a matter of fact.

Not really. It's just a turn of phrase. like when 6 year old Jim asks his dad can I go play in the rain? and his dad replies if it's rainin' what you should wear?. If is introductory.
In that case, I just don't agree with that restricted scope. It seems to me that you can cause harm to living things without them being people, and to cause harm is at least in some cases morally wrong. At this point we seem to have conflicting beliefs, but no sign of any fact to use for resolving that difference.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:38 pm While we are on the subject, it is sort of a thing about facts that a person can examine them and reach a grounded conclusion such that others who disagree are just demonstrably wrong. A signature feature of opinion on the other hand is that people need persuading. The signature of custom, etiquette and fashion is that people tend to go with what they have seen others do. It sure seems like morality lies in one of those latter categories to me.

A great deal of what is called morality is just that, but a a man belongs to himself is fact and it's wrong to leash a man is the moral fact derived from the fact.

More formally: a person belongs to himself therefore it is wrong to treat him as property or resource.
The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact. It's like the answer to a riddle "two legs I have I, the self owning animal...."

It's one of those things that if you agree with it the second you first hear it, you can't understand anyone doubting, but if you don't initially agree with it as a sentiment, it's hard to get there by process of reason or observation. I certainly can't see any reason that a man would have more of this right to own himself than a donkey does, just because he has better words with which to express his opinion on the matter.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: challenge!

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:24 pmI'm a moral realist: that is, I believe there is a moral fact that can be derived from fact. My reasoning, my statement, is the opening post. Go read it.
The thing is right from the start you have to make allowances:
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 amInstinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.
Yup, seems straightforward to me, but there are people, Catholics probably being the biggest group, who apparently believe that life is given by some god, and it remains the property of that god to take back any time it pleases. Apologists will argue that you are free to do as you will with your life, but the punishment for not making the right choice is torture on a scale the most ambitious mortal psychopath could only dream of.
Anyway, does that meet your challenge?
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 am Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.
Okie-dokie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUpv2AqbZ1E
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Flash

Post by henry quirk »

Rmour has it that there are people who, in the privacy of their own homes, and without harming another man's property in any way, slather their own junk in peanut butter and get the family dog to lick it off. I'm not convinced we can have any full description of morality that doesn't treat this is a moral wrong.

Beastiality is a mental health issue, not a moral one.


In that case, I just don't agree with that restricted scope. It seems to me that you can cause harm to living things without them being people, and to cause harm is at least in some cases morally wrong. At this point we seem to have conflicting beliefs, but no sign of any fact to use for resolving that difference.

Well, all you have to do is convince me the earlier mentioned dog is a person, and that the dog objects to bein' used in such a way. That is to say: personhood -- it's absence or presence -- is the fact you're lookin' for.


The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact.

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?



It's one of those things that if you agree with it the second you first hear it, you can't understand anyone doubting

No person doubts he belongs to himself, as I illustrated in my opening.


I certainly can't see any reason that a man would have more of this right to own himself than a donkey does

A man doesn't have a right to own himself. He belongs to himself, naturally, fully. There's no legislatin' ownness away; there's only violatin' or respectin' the person.

Is the donkey a person?
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk »

Yup, seems straightforward to me, but there are people, Catholics probably being the biggest group, who apparently believe that life is given by some god, and it remains the property of that god to take back any time it pleases. Apologists will argue that you are free to do as you will with your life, but the punishment for not making the right choice is torture on a scale the most ambitious mortal psychopath could only dream of.
Anyway, does that meet your challenge?


My self-imposed challenge was to coherently address your (and Pete's) list.

As for catholicism: bring me one so that I might joust with him.

That there cold fire ain't really fire, but even if it were, that ain't the youtube video you ought to foist up.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Flash

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 pm Rmour has it that there are people who, in the privacy of their own homes, and without harming another man's property in any way, slather their own junk in peanut butter and get the family dog to lick it off. I'm not convinced we can have any full description of morality that doesn't treat this is a moral wrong.

Beastiality is a mental health issue, not a moral one.
We have the category of criminally insane to describe people who are so mad they cannot understand the moral implications of their actions. For everybody else we expect impulse control, and we treat failure to control themselves as imoral. Are you explicitly comfortable with eliminating all of that part of our moral discourse in order to preserve your argument? People try to get away with a lot of bad things by saying it's out of character, I'm not like that really, it was just a moment of insanity that I will always regret - I'm not sold on us just buying that line.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 pm In that case, I just don't agree with that restricted scope. It seems to me that you can cause harm to living things without them being people, and to cause harm is at least in some cases morally wrong. At this point we seem to have conflicting beliefs, but no sign of any fact to use for resolving that difference.

Well, all you have to do is convince me the earlier mentioned dog is a person, and that the dog objects to bein' used in such a way. That is to say: personhood -- it's absence or presence -- is the fact you're lookin' for.
I don't have to do that, I don't intend to try. The dog is not a person, it is still imoral to fuck it, these are totally standard opinions. A pond full of rare fish is not a person, it is still imoral to poison it, and that imorality is not dependent on somebody making a property claim against those fish, it's just a wrong thing to do. If your desciption of morality cannot encompass this stuff, it just isn't adequate.

There is also nothing built into the concept of imorality that requires the other party to actually object. The dog has no idea at all that the man with the jar of peanut butter is a disgusting pervert, the entire ruse is predicated on the dog's ignorance of such matters.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 pm The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact.

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?



It's one of those things that if you agree with it the second you first hear it, you can't understand anyone doubting

No person doubts he belongs to himself, as I illustrated in my opening.


I certainly can't see any reason that a man would have more of this right to own himself than a donkey does

A man doesn't have a right to own himself. He belongs to himself, naturally, fully. There's no legislatin' ownness away; there's only violatin' or respectin' the person.

Is the donkey a person?
I'm sorry Henry, but the whole thing makes less sense than you are thinking it does. Persons are just not the sort of thing that can belong in that sense, not to anyone, we are not property nor does is make sense to describe us as chattel, so the whole circular property of self with its messy owned owner thing doesn't work that well. I get it, you like it, you liked it the minute you heard it, but it has no persuasive power, it works only when you preach to the choir.

The donkey can be hungry, that's his hunger right? The donkey is unlikely to think of himself as your property. the only difference is that the donkey can't say anything about the matter. But neither can than that 12 week fetus, which is less likely to experience hunger than the donkey is.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4598
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Flash

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:43 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 pm Rmour has it that there are people who, in the privacy of their own homes, and without harming another man's property in any way, slather their own junk in peanut butter and get the family dog to lick it off. I'm not convinced we can have any full description of morality that doesn't treat this is a moral wrong.

Beastiality is a mental health issue, not a moral one.
We have the category of criminally insane to describe people who are so mad they cannot understand the moral implications of their actions. For everybody else we expect impulse control, and we treat failure to control themselves as imoral. Are you explicitly comfortable with eliminating all of that part of our moral discourse in order to preserve your argument? People try to get away with a lot of bad things by saying it's out of character, I'm not like that really, it was just a moment of insanity that I will always regret - I'm not sold on us just buying that line.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 pm In that case, I just don't agree with that restricted scope. It seems to me that you can cause harm to living things without them being people, and to cause harm is at least in some cases morally wrong. At this point we seem to have conflicting beliefs, but no sign of any fact to use for resolving that difference.

Well, all you have to do is convince me the earlier mentioned dog is a person, and that the dog objects to bein' used in such a way. That is to say: personhood -- it's absence or presence -- is the fact you're lookin' for.
I don't have to do that, I don't intend to try. The dog is not a person, it is still imoral to fuck it, these are totally standard opinions. A pond full of rare fish is not a person, it is still imoral to poison it, and that imorality is not dependent on somebody making a property claim against those fish, it's just a wrong thing to do. If your desciption of morality cannot encompass this stuff, it just isn't adequate.

There is also nothing built into the concept of imorality that requires the other party to actually object. The dog has no idea at all that the man with the jar of peanut butter is a disgusting pervert, the entire ruse is predicated on the dog's ignorance of such matters.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 pm The individual sovereignty thing is really more of an axiom than an observed fact.

Did you read my opening post? I'm talkin' about sumthin' more than individual sovereignty.

When you're hungry, you experience it, but no one else does. No one can observe it, but your hunger is real, yeah?



It's one of those things that if you agree with it the second you first hear it, you can't understand anyone doubting

No person doubts he belongs to himself, as I illustrated in my opening.


I certainly can't see any reason that a man would have more of this right to own himself than a donkey does

A man doesn't have a right to own himself. He belongs to himself, naturally, fully. There's no legislatin' ownness away; there's only violatin' or respectin' the person.

Is the donkey a person?
I'm sorry Henry, but the whole thing makes less sense than you are thinking it does. Persons are just not the sort of thing that can belong in that sense, not to anyone, we are not property nor does is make sense to describe us as chattel, so the whole circular property of self with its messy owned owner thing doesn't work that well. I get it, you like it, you liked it the minute you heard it, but it has no persuasive power, it works only when you preach to the choir.

The donkey can be hungry, that's his hunger right? The donkey is unlikely to think of himself as your property. the only difference is that the donkey can't say anything about the matter. But neither can than that 12 week fetus, which is less likely to experience hunger than the donkey is.
Using your words, you are that stupid, buffoon, incompetent, foolish person who is ignorant of what morality-proper is.
Rumor?? It is more like speaking from personal experiences.

Morality [my definition] and justified is confined to the interests of the human species and only to other non-humans where there is a positive interest to the human species.

If your 'morality' is full of empathy and compassion to non-humans, are you implying the present humans are immoral when they have kill non-human living things for food, cut down living trees, etc.

It is not a question of morality, if there are over-population of living non-human things and it is reaching point as a threat to the human species, it would be cost-beneficial to kill some to reduce their numbers.

In term of morality, the moral fact and moral law [as justified] is;
"no human ought to kill another human" period, no exception.
If there is an overpopulation of humans, it has to be controlled by "effective means" but not by killing humans or fetuses.

In practice, there will be killing of human by another human, but that would be dealt within political laws and various ethical considerations.

As Henry has stated, bestiality and other cruelty to non-human living things is not morality-per-se but it is rather a perversion and a psychiatric problem.

At present there are considerations for animals who are pets because they serve individuals of the human species in various positive ways other than being food. In this case, there would be some sort of minor consideration of ethics but not morality [as defined, i.e. PURE].
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: challenge!

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:53 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:24 pm eating meat?

If morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another man (person), then this is a non-brainer. Don't eat people. Is a chicken a person? Is a horse a person? If yes, it's wrong to eat them. If no, then eat hearty.

I expect some one to ask what's a person?

If the question is asked, we can dive in. For now, for this (I think) coherent response, I'll assume the reader knows it when he sees it..
There's a much simpler issue than personhood there. If morality is only about man's intent ... other men, then it follows that nothing at all that we do to animals is immoral. This is a problem Immanuel Kant gave himself as well and he came up with a truly shit set of reasons why it is wrong for a man to shoot his dog.

However, you ran out of moral facts real fast when you went with that "if". Surely what morality is about ought to be a matter of fact.

While we are on the subject, it is sort of a thing about facts that a person can examine them and reach a grounded conclusion such that others who disagree are just demonstrably wrong*. A signature feature of opinion on the other hand is that people need persuading. The signature of custom, etiquette and fashion is that people tend to go with what they have seen others do. It sure seems like morality lies in one of those latter categories to me.
Again, nicely put. Here are the non-sequiturs:

People own themselves, so eating them is morally wrong.
Animals don't own themselves, so eating them is not morally wrong.

Just the same bs rehashed.

(Oops, I seem to have disobeyed and commented again. Still, I own myself, so why not?)

* I'm aware that a couple of our most insistent commenters think this is wrong. But one of them has insisted he he totally opposed to moral relativism, and then demanded I explain when he had ever been anything but a relativist, and the other can't decide whether he's an antirealist or a full scientific realist, and then he goes off if you dare besmirch Yin Yang. So that way fucking idiocy lies.
I share your bewilderment and frustration. It seems the idiocy of moral objectivism has to be maintained at all costs. It's like a religion.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

I forgot henry quirk actually reads the headers...

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:46 pmMy self-imposed challenge was to coherently address your (and Pete's) list.
Yeah, sorry about that. The 'challenge' was the task you gave us in the op:
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 amYour task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:46 pmAs for catholicism: bring me one so that I might joust with him.
Well, it's not just Catholics. A quick google came up with this:
"God owns you! Your soul is not your own; you belong to another. God owns you by right of creation. Because he created you, he owns you–just as any artist owns that which he creates.

“For every living soul belongs to me” (Ezek. 18:4).
“You are not your own” (1 Cor. 6:19).
“A man’s life is not his own” (Jer. 10:23)."

https://www.christian-faith.com/who-owns-your-soul/
Granted they might be bonkers, but there are plenty of people who will sing hallelujah because they believe they are owned.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:46 pmThat there cold fire ain't really fire, but even if it were, that ain't the youtube video you ought to foist up.
Well, I tried.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Flash

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:51 am Morality [my definition] and justified is confined to the interests of the human species and only to other non-humans where there is a positive interest to the human species.

If your 'morality' is full of empathy and compassion to non-humans, are you implying the present humans are immoral when they have kill non-human living things for food, cut down living trees, etc.
In your other thread you are accusing me of having no empathy at all due to some sort of brain damage that is the only excuse for not agreeing with you. Now We have excess of empathy. You need to make your mind up buddy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:51 am It is not a question of morality, if there are over-population of living non-human things and it is reaching point as a threat to the human species, it would be cost-beneficial to kill some to reduce their numbers.
It must be a question of morality, and you obviously are aware of that otherwise you wouldn't need to provide explanations to justify such as overpopulation.

You don't have to provide a reason why it is better to be on the other side of the road before you cross, but you do need to provice one for shooting 700 cows, because crossing the road and murdering a bunch of animals are not the same sort of choices, one has moral consequence and the other does not under normal circumstances.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:51 am In term of morality, the moral fact and moral law [as justified] is;
"no human ought to kill another human" period, no exception.
If there is an overpopulation of humans, it has to be controlled by "effective means" but not by killing humans or fetuses.

In practice, there will be killing of human by another human, but that would be dealt within political laws and various ethical considerations.

Your moral fact is not compatible with Henry's moral fact though. Henry allows for revenge killing but you cannot. I don't believe Henry would agree that there is no exception to the rule that no human ought to kill any other and his moral fact I believe says outright that there are circumstances where one specifically ought to kill. So what is the morally factual way for you and Henry to resolve this difference of fact? One of you must be wrong unless you are you are willing to argue that there are mutually exclusive true facts, which is something you have had months of warnings to think about, but which you denied would ever be a problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:51 am As Henry has stated, bestiality and other cruelty to non-human living things is not morality-per-se but it is rather a perversion and a psychiatric problem.

At present there are considerations for animals who are pets because they serve individuals of the human species in various positive ways other than being food. In this case, there would be some sort of minor consideration of ethics but not morality [as defined, i.e. PURE].
You are both wrong. It is immoral to punch a dog in the face, it is unethical to do immoral stuff like punching dogs in the face. You arbitrarily discard moral language in these circumstances to suit your limited arguments, but you are failing to include what are clearly moral and immoral choices, which only shows that your argument is insufficient and overly eliminative.

No sane perosn in the world has any need for any argument that depends on it not being immoral to hold a dog down and shit on its head.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: challenge!

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:40 am

* I'm aware that a couple of our most insistent commenters think this is wrong. But one of them has insisted he he totally opposed to moral relativism, and then demanded I explain when he had ever been anything but a relativist, and the other can't decide whether he's an antirealist or a full scientific realist, and then he goes off if you dare besmirch Yin Yang. So that way fucking idiocy lies.
I share your bewilderment and frustration. It seems the idiocy of moral objectivism has to be maintained at all costs. It's like a religion.
I don't know, moral objectivism has appeal, it would be nice if I could point to some fact in the world that made it $True that something was moral, but we have all these debates because one and the same thing can be immoral, but not unjust, or vice versa.

Consider my nehpew's 5th birthday party. Various 5 year old children attended and games were played, there was a contest to pin the tail on a donkey while blindfolded, which was won by the child who did the thing best. After that, every game was graded on a curve, and kids who had already won something were doomed to lose all further games until everyone was a winner and all scores were equal. My nephew had an absolute shitfit when he lost a game of lying very still because he was certain (and correctly so) that he hadn't moved an inch. It was pure injustice, the rules of the game had not been followed, his rightful victory was stolen from him. But it was fair as well. The reasoning was explained to him, he even agreed that it was fair and just because the other kid hadn't won a prize yet. So why did he continue crying? Because it was unfair and unjust at the same time that it was fair and just.You cannot hope to disentangle morality from questions of fairness, and rightness, it serves no purpose on its own, it means nothing in exclusion.

This is shit you are supposed to learn when you are 5. That as soon as you get into any of the mess of real life, it's rarely demonstrable that one justice is better than another, or one fairness is superior to the rest, or that one moral rule is better than a competitor, let alone that any moral rule of real significance can be truly universal. If there is a way to see these matters that is incompatible with the one you choose, somebody passionately believes that version of affairs is true. The only resolution available is discussion, persuasion and if need be force - there's no facts out there to point at which resolve them, otherwise shit would be easy.

Everybody has a mess of incompatible beliefs about morality that they hold true at once. You can take the reason somebody gives for something they don't like being bad, and apply that same reasoning to something they do like without ever actually demonstrating that the target is bad. Something always crops up that makes it unfair to compare them this way, or else you are right, but still wrong for some reason. If this shit was facts, that wouldn't work, ever, everybody would have to live with half their moral beliefs being factually incorrect, none of us would be exempt. Yet the people who believe strongly in moral fact always seem to think it will justify all of their opinions.

Moral fact is a lot like the Bible in that regard. You must have noticed how everything that any hardcore Christian believes is moral or immoral is always backed up by God, even though some equal but opposite Christian looks at that same source and learns their own beliefs are totally biblical too? Moral fact never tells any of these people they are wrong. Nobody I have ever encountered has looked up a table of moral facts and needed to change their mind about anything. Just as the Bible tells one Christian that sodomites are going to Hell but it tells another that God loves everyone just the way they are.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Flash

Post by henry quirk »

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.


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.


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?


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.


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.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk »

The 'challenge' was the task you gave us in the op:

Which you didn't attempt to tackle opting instead to bring me cold fire.


Well, it's not just Catholics.

I know. Mannie and me have jousted privately. It was an immovable object & an irresistible force kinda deal.

And for the record: Mannie's arguments in support of his religion are a helluva lot more solid and consistent (though not terribly convincing to me) than any of the arguments foisted up by those lookin' to poke holes in my notions of moral realism.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Flash

Post by henry quirk »

One of you must be wrong

Yeah, that would be VA (sorry, guy: I appreciate your efforts, but a moral fact isn't dependent on, nor does it extend out from, intersubjectivity or consensus).
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: uwot

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:42 pm Well, it's not just Catholics.

I know. Mannie and me have jousted privately. It was an immovable object & an irresistible force kinda deal.

And for the record: Mannie's arguments in support of his religion are a helluva lot more solid and consistent (though not terribly convincing to me) than any of the arguments foisted up by those lookin' to poke holes in my notions of moral realism.
Those is contentious claims, Henry.

Please can you cite the IC argument in support of his religion that you find most solid and consistent, though not terribly convincing to you? I can't have been paying attention.

And the way to deal with objections to your moral realism - 'hole-poking' - is to show why they're wrong.

For example, I think 'people own themselves', even if it's true, has no moral entailment. Care to show why it can and does?
Post Reply