Objections to Minimal Moral Realism

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Objections to Minimal Moral Realism

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:24 am

Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
You're clearly more interested in verbal squabbles than issues of substance.
If you're not going to defend your claims or explain yourself then you're not going to be permitted to continue making them.
You need to either respond to posts, or move on to other topics. That's how it works here and how we keep conversations moving.

The way I see it, you're just not able to respond. That's fine, but if you have no retort then you shouldn't continue to make the assertion.
Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
Everything you've said is either false
Which things are false, and why?
Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
or just reflects incompetence with moral concepts. (For example, in "X is right" X has to denote an act of some sort, for only acts can have rightness
Why do you assume only acts can have rightness? Many moral views rely on intention or belief and not actions. I don't necessarily agree with it, but you still need to address it.
You need to be more clear about how X is limited and why. And what even is an act? Is believing an action?

"X is right" is true can easily be "Bob believes murder is right is true" if you fail to restrict the meaning of X.

I can explain why actions matter: because of their consequences. Consequentialism provides justification for moral evaluation. It's something Deontologists have trouble with.
However, it's also easy to make a strong basis for virtue ethics when it comes to character judgement and what makes a person right or wrong without having to talk about an act itself in the conventional sense.
Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
And you keep referencing wiki pages. They're not peer reviewed. Academics don't use them or (typically) write them. For all I know, YOU wrote those entries.
:lol: It's the forum wiki page. Of course I've contributed to it. You might be able to as well if you have something to add.
I said we wrote it for the purpose of giving the link to people like you who don't understand the issues with objective/subjective claims.
Please read the article and respond to it if you disagree.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm

That's why wiki pages count for nothing - they're not subject to proper peer review. You are referring people to pages written by people who think they are experts on things they lack expertise on. You, for instance.

I assume that acts alone can have moral rightness becasue it is a conceputual truth.


I said that all objectivist views about morality are insane because they involve attributing to objective - that is, mind-external - features the ability to issue imperatives. And that's insane. I mean, it really is.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:03 am

Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm
That's why wiki pages count for nothing - they're not subject to proper peer review. You are referring people to pages written by people who think they are experts on things they lack expertise on. You, for instance.
If you disagree with anything on the philosophical vegan wiki you're welcome to bring it up.
We develop these resources for the community.
Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm
I assume that acts alone can have moral rightness becasue it is a conceputual truth.
OK, so you do this on the basis of magical gnosis. I see. That is, you're pulling it out of your ass and asserting it to be just so.
Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm
I said that all objectivist views about morality are insane because they involve attributing to objective - that is, mind-external - features the ability to issue imperatives. And that's insane. I mean, it really is.
I already debunked your argument.
You're just begging the question here, assuming imperatives must come from minds and assuming objectivity must by definition be mind-external.
You're employing special definitions made to suit your argument and to quite dishonestly manipulate the audience into agreeing with you despite these definitions not holding widespread acceptance among the very people you're criticizing for being insane.

Not only are you wrong about objectivity (a mind can potentially employ objective tasks of reasoning, e.g. mathematics), but you're also wrong about imperatives; hypothetical ones (rather than categorical ones) stem from purpose. E.g. IF something is a knife, to be a good knife, it ought to be sharp because of the purpose it is set to from it being defined as a knife. We can objectively reason imperatives based on goals or ideals of things and the nature of our physical world. It's not that complicated, and indeed it's insane to deny that simple fact.

You're the only nutter here, I'm afraid.

If you don't want to actually respond to my arguments, you should bow out of this discussion.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:09 pm

The less they know, the less they know it.

You don't 'debunk' an arugment, you 'refute' it.

And my argument is not question begging.

This is a question begging argument:

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore P

Here is my argument:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives, then they issue from a mind
2. Moral imperaties are imperatives
3. Therefore, moral imperatives issue from a mind

That's not question begging.

Now, provide a refutation of it. That is, provide me with a deductively valid argument that has the negation of one of my premises as a conclusion and that has premises that are more prima facie plausible than mine. Don't say you already have - you haven't. Do it.

You won't be able to. If you deny deny that moral imperatives are imperatives, then you're just confused (and you really are) and owe me an explanation of exactly what a moral imperative is, if not an imperative. Alternatively, you will have to insist that imperatives can issue from things that lack minds - in which case you belong in a padded cell.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests