Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:36 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:33 pm You didn't seem to understand "corresponds to an ontological distinction."

You don't seem to understand that all distinctions are epistemic.

You're thinking that outside of epistemology the world is a homogeneous soup?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:37 pm You're thinking that outside of epistemology the world is a homogeneous soup?

I am thinking that outside of epistemology homogeneity and heterogeneity are immaterial.

In universe A you ought to draw the distinction.
in universe B you ought to abstract it away.

You've created universe A by drawing the distinction.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:38 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:37 pm You're thinking that outside of epistemology the world is a homogeneous soup?

I am thinking that outside of epistemology homogeneity and heterogeneity are immaterial.

In universe A you ought to draw the distinction.
in universe B you ought to abstract it away.

You've created universe A by drawing the distinction.

"Immaterial" in the sense of whether it matters to you/ whether you care about it?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:39 pm "Immaterial" in the sense of whether it matters to you/ whether you care about it?

Immaterial because it adds nothing to your argument.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:42 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:39 pm "Immaterial" in the sense of whether it matters to you/ whether you care about it?

Immaterial because it adds nothing to your argument.

It was a question about your view. Not an argument.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:44 pm It was a question about your view. Not an argument.

I don't have a view - singular.
I have views - plural.

In one view everything is homogenous.
In another view everything is heterogenous.

Those are epistemic views, they can become ontological as needed.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:44 pm It was a question about your view. Not an argument.

I don't have a view - singular.
I have views - plural.

In one view everything is homogenous.
In another view everything is heterogenous.

Those are epistemic views, they can become ontological as needed.

By "ontological" I'm referring more or less to the world as it would be even if no people existed.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:48 pm By "ontological" I'm referring more or less to the world as it would be even if no people existed.

Why would you want to refer to a world without referrers?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:14 am Re human killing humans, Henry's view is not in alignment [I don't prefer the misleading term 'wrong'] within the scientific-to-moral fact basis.

What's misleading about calling a factual error wrong, mistaken, false and incorrect? Why would it be reduced to merely "not in alignment" with a verified fact?

The use of 'wrong' is not appropriate for morality-proper.

Let say your expectation [some standard for your age group and conditions] is to run 100 meters in 15 seconds.
If you happened to run in 20 seconds, i.e. you fall short of your expectation, is that 'wrong'??

It is the same with any recognizable standards and targets, if one fall short of the targets, it is not a matter of 'wrongness'.
In addition, if one use the wrong shoes, took drugs, i.e. not within the standard, that is not in alignment with the standard.

In the case of morality-proper [as defined] when one failed to meet the moral standard, that is not a 'wrong' but a moral variance, a moral gap, falling short of the standard or not in alignment with the moral standard.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 3:24 am

Within laws enacted by an authority [the legal FSK], all members are obligated i.e. ought to comply with the laws or else they will be punished accordingly.

Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions. Again, this is in no way verifiable aside from verifying that the people in question have those opinions and take those actions.

Note I am referring to legal facts from within a legal Framework System and Knowledge.

"Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions." that is irrelevant to the legal FSK.

When the laws are enacted, the legal oughtness are verifiable as authoritative and effective in the official papers in the legislative department.
These are legal facts within the legal FSK and are independent of individuals' opinion and belief.

Where the law states and enforces the legal-fact that "no citizen ought to kill humans" [with legal exceptions] and if they do they will be punished with serious imprisonment or death.

Some individuals may have their opinions and disagree with the laws [that has nothing to do with the legal FSK], but the legal oughtness is a legal fact and will take effect if they kill humans.
As such the legal fact within the legal FSK is objective, thus independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 3:24 am

Within laws enacted by an authority [the legal FSK], all members are obligated i.e. ought to comply with the laws or else they will be punished accordingly.

Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions. Again, this is in no way verifiable aside from verifying that the people in question have those opinions and take those actions.

Note I am referring to legal facts from within a legal Framework System and Knowledge.

"Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions." that is irrelevant to the legal FSK.

When the laws are enacted, the legal oughtness are verifiable as authoritative and effective in the official papers in the legislative department.
These are legal facts within the legal FSK and are independent of individuals' opinion and belief.

Where the law states and enforces the legal-fact that "no citizen ought to kill humans" [with legal exceptions] and if they do they will be punished with serious imprisonment or death.

Some individuals may have their opinions and disagree with the laws [that has nothing to do with the legal FSK], but the legal oughtness is a legal fact and will take effect if they kill humans.
As such the legal fact within the legal FSK is objective, thus independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

This is fundamentally wrong. The fact that a law exists does not mean that 'legal oughtness' exists - that we ought to obey the law. We don't use the word 'ought' in that way. We can always choose to obey or disobey a law - even if disobedience incurs punishment - so the claim that we ought to obey it expresses an opinion. 'We ought to obey the law' can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion. And the same goes for the claim that we ought to follow our neural 'programming' - if such there is - to behave in certain ways.

The claim that, just as legal facts exist, so do moral facts - that there's a 'moral FSK' just as there's a 'legal FSK' - is false.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:10 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:14 am Re human killing humans, Henry's view is not in alignment [I don't prefer the misleading term 'wrong'] within the scientific-to-moral fact basis.

What's misleading about calling a factual error wrong, mistaken, false and incorrect? Why would it be reduced to merely "not in alignment" with a verified fact?

The use of 'wrong' is not appropriate for morality-proper.

If it's not about right and wrong it's not morality at all. Morality-garbage is what you are peddling. You are the purveyor of pseduo-morality.

This is what you and your predecessor Prof do all the time. You fail to analyse the phenomenon in question using the tools you desire because those tools are inapproriate to the task. So you simply substitute the phonemenon for whatever your tool can do instead.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:50 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:48 pm By "ontological" I'm referring more or less to the world as it would be even if no people existed.

Why would you want to refer to a world without referrers?

I'm interested in what's the case.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 am When the laws are enacted, the legal oughtness are verifiable as authoritative and effective in the official papers in the legislative department.
These are legal facts within the legal FSK and are independent of individuals' opinion and belief.

Where the law states and enforces the legal-fact that "no citizen ought to kill humans" [with legal exceptions] and if they do they will be punished with serious imprisonment or death.

Some individuals may have their opinions and disagree with the laws [that has nothing to do with the legal FSK], but the legal oughtness is a legal fact and will take effect if they kill humans.
As such the legal fact within the legal FSK is objective, thus independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

At best, all you could be referring to here is the fact that the word "ought"--that is, sets of marks in that shape, an "o" shape, followed by a "u" shape, etc. occur on pieces of paper and so on.

But that in no way amounts to a normative. There is no meaning attached to it, there is nothing prescribing anything to anyone, etc. in those shapes on paper in themselves. They're just marks on a particular sort of material.

People can THINK a normative, and they can take particular ACTIONS such as imprisoning someone who commits murder, but then we're not talking about something independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

And the fact that Joe and Frank and Betty and Sue and so on think "You ought/ought not do x," and then Joe and Frank and Betty and Sue and so on taking action to imprison someone if they don't/do perform x, in no way amounts to a verifiable normative that Pete ought to do x. All we can verify is that Joe and Frank and Betty and Sue feel and thus said that "You ought/ought not do x" and then take the subsequent actions they do. That's in no way independent of their opinions or beliefs.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:46 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:50 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:48 pm By "ontological" I'm referring more or less to the world as it would be even if no people existed.

Why would you want to refer to a world without referrers?

I'm interested in what's the case.

You are confused as hell, mate.

How could you (a referrer) be interested in a referring to a world without referrers?