Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm
My definitions are clear. I use 'realism' to mean 'actually exists' (which is what it means by default). And so for morality really to exist, is for some moral propositions of the form "X is right" to be true. It really couldn't be clearer.
No, it couldn't be more ambiguous, because "X" could be anything.
if X = "Bob believes it to be moral to squish kittens" that can still be true (right, correct, etc.) depending on what Bob believes. That doesn't get us to realism.
Realism, even the minimal sort, requires that X be a substantive moral claim, like that it is or isn't moral to squish kittens given a certain context.
It can not just be a claim about somebody's beliefs or opinions, which is a usage that makes it trivial: thus the issue with you inserting subjectivism into the mix. If it's trivially true, then the word adds no value to the conversation and we can infer that's probably not a useful or correct definition (if we assume the more correct definition is one that's actually adding something of useful meaning to a conversation or identity, and here we DO assume that).
If the definition you're using doesn't actually meaningfully define and differentiate what is or isn't a realist position then you're using a special (and wrong) definition.
Do you want to try again?
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmAnd I use 'subjective' to mean 'made of the states of a subject', which is what it standardly means.
ALSO a useless definition which could apply to anything, everything, or nothing at all.
Please read this article, which was made for situations like this where people do not grasp the ambiguity created by these terms:
wiki/index.php/Objective-subjective_distinction
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmAnyway, I am not going to continue to squabble about labels as, like I say, it is clear how I am using them and my usage is not unorthodox or misleading,
You're wrong.
So, if you won't defend or clarify your usage of these terms, then there's nothing to discuss here because everything that follows from your incorrect terminology is illogical nonsense playing off various ambiguity fallacies.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm1. Moral imperatives are a subset of the imperatives of Reason
What's an imperative?
Are we talking hypothetical imperatives or categorical ones? And what does the latter mean if so?
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm2. Minds and only minds can issue prescriptions
Well I disagree with that. A hypothetical norm can be derived from reason without a mind. A computer program could work it out, unless you want a circular definition in which a mind is anything that can issue a prescription.
As per the first question on imperatives, I'd ask what a prescription really is though.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm3. Therefore, morality is composed of a subset of the imperatives of a mind, Reason.
Why do you think 3 follows from 1 and 2?
What syllogistic form is this taking? Your syntax is a mess.
Even if I accepted 1 and 2 (which I do not because they're ambiguous as hell) I'm not convinced that 3 follows. You need to prove this rather than assert it. Show me what syllogism you're using here.
Is what you're trying to claim here that reason is a mind?
No, I do not agree that reason is a mind. It's a process. Confusing reason (the process) for a mind is like confusing evolution (the process) with a species.
Reason may be the fundamental characteristic of a mind, and I think you can probably make a pretty good argument for that, but that doesn't mean it IS a mind.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm4. Moral prescriptions have a single source
Why do you think this? That's like saying mathematical computation has a single source.
You can get the same correct math out of any number of calculators. The only question is whether they're operating correctly.
We can also get the same correct moral reasoning from any number of minds as long as they're reasoning correctly.
And I'd say we can get prescriptions from non-minds too, as long as they're processing the information according to an appropriate heuristic -- just like a mind, or a calculator, can deliver the correct solution to an equation.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm5. Moral prescriptions have an external source
What's that even mean? External to what?
Is math external to a calculator? In some sense, sure, but it's being used INSIDE the calculator too.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm6. Therefore, morality is composed of the prescriptions of a single mind, Reason.
The argument is valid. It is not circular, for no premise asserts the conclusion. And each of those premises is capable of independent support - indeed, I don't think there's a reasonable doubt possible about any of them.
I just showed how all of the premises are ambiguous nonsense. And no, you have not proved any of this valid because it's a semantic mess, there's no clear syllogism that supports, for example, your third statement from the first and second. Or the sixth from the fourth and fifth.
You need to word this all much more clearly so the syllogism you're using here is clear too, or you need to show this all in symbolic form. You've proved nothing, and none of your premises are very convincing at all.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmYou ask why the god could not be your friend Bob. Well it could be, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely and it is easily testable.
What you described is not at test, it's rhetoric.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmEven if we restrict the pool of possible minds to human minds (a wholly unjustified restriction) the odds would be 7 billion to 1.
It's as likely as any other guess, which is to say all this moral system would do is make you have no idea what's moral aside from guessing with the majority, which is a terrible moral system that would support slavery etc.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmAnd moral imperatives were around in Socrates' day, so is your friend Bob thousands of years old?
When one Bob dies another one takes over. So?
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmPlus do the imperatives and character of Reason bear any resemblence whatsoever to your friend Bob?
Are you the arbiter of reason then? I would say you think you're god if you think you can answer that. If Bob is the epitome of moral reason and you're not, then anything you disagree with him about you'd be in the wrong but fail to understand why. Bob works in mysterious ways to other human beings. You're not Bob so you don't understand how correct Bob is.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmYou mention my being in a minority. Yes, what's that got to do with anything?
One person with a crackpot theory slandering the majority of philosophers doesn't look good. The probability here is that you're wrong, particularly as you've proved nothing at all.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmDo you believe the correct metaethical theory is determined by whichever one the majority of experts believe to be correct, or the one that is supported by Reason?
The latter, but unless you have access to a tap of pure reason and have no biases etc. (do you again think you're god and can't be wrong on this?) then the majority of experts are likely more reasonable than you are. The probability of you having come up with something new and proved virtually every philosopher an idiot is very low. More likely you're the one who is wrong and delusional. Have a little more humility when you're working against consensus (however slight).
Even if there's no single theory that has united the overwhelming majority, they can at least be united against yours.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmObjectivist positions are insane.
That, right there. I don't think the overwhelming majority of philosophers would have any problem rejecting that claim.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmMorality instructs, guides, prescribes, favours, values. How on earth - I mean, how on earth - can anything 'objetive' do that?
It's called a hypothetical norm. If you want your knife to be able to cut well, it ought to be sharp. We can grant provisional "should" statements very easily.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pmBy definition, if something is objective then it exists extra-mentally - that is, outside of a mind.
Incorrect. That is your special circular definition. Again, read the wiki article on the topic:
wiki/index.php/Objective-subjective_distinction