Page 10 of 13
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm
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.
So the psychological gratification of helping people is not a reason?
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm
by Terrapin Station
Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is purpose.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm
The "is" doesn't logically imply the "ought.
That use of the adjective "logically" depends on which logic you use.
In imperative logic it is implied.
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).
This is circular. You have some standards/values/oughts pertaining to "incorrectness" and "inaccuracies"
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
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:39 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm
Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is
purpose.
Would you say that purpose and goal mean approximately the same thing if you are not an aspie?
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:42 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:35 pm
The "is" doesn't logically imply the "ought.
That use of the adjective "logically" depends on which logic you use.
In imperative logic it is implied.
That would need to be supported (that it's the case rather than just being a subjective stipulation) rather than just claimed.
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).
This is circular.
It's not an argument. The second sentence is further explaining what I'm saying in the first.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:43 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:39 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:38 pm
Actually the word Gewirth uses for P, by the way, is
purpose.
Would you say that purpose and goal mean approximately the same thing if you are not an aspie?
Conventionally they often "mean" the same thing, sure.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:45 pm
by Skepdick
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.
OK.
The imperative "Alexa, turn on the light" is reified via logic.
I say it - and the lights turn on.
Ought -> IS.
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.
I didn't say it's an argument. I am saying that the statement is circular either way.
Is circularity a double-standard which only applies to arguments, but not to regular language?
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:46 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:45 pm
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.
OK.
The imperative "Alexa, turn on the light" is reified via logic.
I say it - and the lights turn on.
Ought -> IS.
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.
I didn't say it's an argument. I am saying that the statement is circular either way.
Before we go off on this tangent more, have you already given up pretending to be interested in the Gewirth stuff?
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm
by Skepdick
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?
When did you stop raping children?
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:48 pm
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?
When did you stop raping children?
So yes
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
by Skepdick
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:49 pm
by Terrapin Station
The tangent has nothing to do with clarifying whether Gewirth is saying that X and P can be the same.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
by Skepdick
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.
I am repeating myself.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:52 pm
by Skepdick
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.
Which part of abstraction, sameness and difference do you not understand?
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:53 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
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.
I am repeating myself.
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."
