Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:55 pm
You can call a collective of subjective values objective if you like, but I don't know where that is supposed to get you.
It gets me to using the word "objective" in the exact same way everybody (except philosophers) uses it.
Of course, philosophers have made up their own definition for "objectivity" given which morality is NOT objective. But nobody gives a shit about philosophers' made up definitions.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:06 pm
I'd like to lodge a complaint. Your classification system is incorrectly alotting my valid questions as "stupid".
Complaints are not my department.
No problem. Let me speak to your line manager.
He's busy with his line right now, he'll get back to you when he can manage it.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:52 pm
Well VA just does happen to be extraordinarily dense.
I wonder if there's an FSK that could put a number on his denseness?
Whoever gave him the key to the FSK cupboard deserves to be shot.
I'm thinking, it could be called Human-Psychology-Denseness-FSK-proper. I'm thinking, the scale could go from 1 to 10, from least dense to most dense. First we could start a topic on a random philosophy forum, where we would make the first estimates by interviewing the people who comment there. And then we could branch out from there and eventually cover the entire humanity. AI could do most of the calculations. We would eventually have enough data to arrive at Objective Denseness Metrics. It'd be great.
I dunno, oughtness not to kill seems to be one of VA's examples of rightness in that it prevents a behavior, though he judges we need to get better at not having tendencies towards violence.
And realists are bad or wrong because some of them are likely to kill anti-realists, which antirealists are less likely to do.
Acts. Bad, wrong. It seems VA's morality encompasses right and wrong. At least sometimes.
You certainly can have morality that does not focus on acts but on character. I don't think that someone is wrong if they think morality is based on rightness and wrongness, but VA presents, well,
a couple of different versions of morality, sort of depending on the argument he's having, primarily with PH.
The anti-consequentialist argument is pretty weak in the OP, but then the consequentialists aren't looking at behavior so much as outcomes. You can certainly kill and be considered good by consequentialists. Oddly the OP doesn't really go into deontologists. Whatever.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:42 pm
If you stick an FSK to it, and put "proper" at the end, it seems you can get away with just about anything, doesn't it?
'Proper' in this context is a synonym for 'right' and thus using it is wrong behavior. So, stop it. Are you in the PH gang?
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:42 pm
If you stick an FSK to it, and put "proper" at the end, it seems you can get away with just about anything, doesn't it?
'Proper' in this context is a synonym for 'right' and thus using it is wrong behavior. So, stop it. Are you in the PH gang?
No, I come into the officially unacknowledged category. VA has me on ignore, and I suspect, FSKed me out of existence.
