It depends on the exact scenario at hand. In some cases, the only "reason" behind the action is the action itself, and there's nothing else to it.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pmSo 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.
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
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
That use of the adjective "logically" depends on which logic you use.
In imperative logic it is implied.
This is circular. You have some standards/values/oughts pertaining to "incorrectness" and "inaccuracies"Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm " 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).
But like Flash Dangergork you are going to resort to special pleading now and insist that those are not moral values. Those are just values.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Would you say that purpose and goal mean approximately the same thing if you are not an aspie?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.This is circular.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm " 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).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Conventionally they often "mean" the same thing, sure.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:39 pmWould you say that purpose and goal mean approximately the same thing if you are not an aspie?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
OK.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
The imperative "Alexa, turn on the light" is reified via logic.
I say it - and the lights turn on.
Ought -> IS.
I didn't say it's an argument. I am saying that the statement is circular either way.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.
Is circularity a double-standard which only applies to arguments, but not to regular language?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:45 pmOK.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
The imperative "Alexa, turn on the light" is reified via logic.
I say it - and the lights turn on.
Ought -> IS.
I didn't say it's an argument. I am saying that the statement is circular either way.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
When did you stop raping children?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:46 pm Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
So yesSkepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pmWhen did you stop raping children?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:46 pm Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
I am repeating myself.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pmThe tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:27 pm When you understand my "irrelevant" tangents are actually relevant (come what may) you will have understood my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold_come_what_may
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Which part of abstraction, sameness and difference do you not understand?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm The tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
Anything is different to anything else, except for their similarities.
Anything is the same as anything else, except for their differences.
If you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is different" then sameness requires justification.
if you begin with the ASSUMPTION that "everything is the same" then difference requires justification.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:53 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
This is the problem with commenting too much. I gave you other stuff to troll about instead of waiting for you to just comment on "It depends on the exact scenario at hand. In some cases, the only 'reason' behind the action is the action itself, and there's nothing else to it" . . . one reason I added more was anticipation of an Aspieish interpretation of "reason."Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pmI am repeating myself.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pmThe tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:27 pm When you understand my "irrelevant" tangents are actually relevant (come what may) you will have understood my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold_come_what_may