I know meta-ethics is related to the discussion but in general it is assume you hold beliefs on the views you expressed.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 9:33 amDo you understand that meta-ethics and ethics are not the same?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 9:27 amAre you aware?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 9:12 am
I have explained to you that the difference between moral realism and moral realism is not a matter of whether somebody participates in our moral ways of life, but of how they explain the deep underlying basis for their moral beliefs, the metaphysics of it all if you will. On set believes in some true set of moral facts that can be uncovered by some means, the other says we are in charge of it and have to put something adequate together via negotiation or custom or some other social practices.
If you argue that moral skeptics cannot hold moral beliefs, then you are inadequate as a philosopher. You are just bad at this stuff. And after so many years of strenuous effort, the fact that you are in this position makes even me, who thinks you are stupid and egregious, a little bit sad.
Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge.
Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible.
Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism
Do you also undertand that saying we don't have knowledge is not the same as saying we don't have beliefs?
You need to take the rest of the day off, you are overheating.
Are you saying you personally hold and have moral beliefs, perhaps moral relativism, moral realism or which?
