Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:25 pm

even if there is a God, that doesn't explain moral truth

That's like sayin' even if there is a Joe the fence builder, that doesn't explain this fence.

Joes builds a fence. It separates us from a pack of rabid Grizzlies. We may not like that fence, may question Joe's choices of material and construction, but the fence stands and none of us can *deny it, or that Joe, as it's builder, has the *final say He might tell us hey, don't like my fence? climb over it and have fun or if my fence offends you build your own (how sad we have no tools or materials or know how to do such a thing).

How we feel about the fence, or how we choose to use or ignore it, is all on us...but the fence is there, no matter what we do.




*well, we can deny the fence exists, and we can deny Joe has final say, but that's silly

Actually, henry, it's your analogy that is silly.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:26 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:18 pm
Harbal: I think I made some fairly clear claims there. I'm not sure what you think is "nothingy" about them.

Making claims without providing any justification for them doesn't really amount to much, does it?

I mean, I can give some clear justification for both points, but that's quite different from claiming that I'm saying nothing.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:31 pmActually, henry, it's your analogy that is silly.

Then leave it.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:26 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:18 pm
Harbal: I think I made some fairly clear claims there. I'm not sure what you think is "nothingy" about them.

Making claims without providing any justification for them doesn't really amount to much, does it?

I mean, I can give some clear justification for both points, but that's quite different from claiming that I'm saying nothing.

Dan, they'll nit-pick you into the grave if you let 'em.

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:26 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:18 pm
Harbal: I think I made some fairly clear claims there. I'm not sure what you think is "nothingy" about them.

Making claims without providing any justification for them doesn't really amount to much, does it?

I mean, I can give some clear justification for both points, but that's quite different from claiming that I'm saying nothing.

Forgive me, Daniel, I was being a smart arse; it usually happens at least once, most days.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:33 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:31 pmActually, henry, it's your analogy that is silly.

Then leave it.

For someone else to step in, you mean?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:31 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:25 pm

even if there is a God, that doesn't explain moral truth

That's like sayin' even if there is a Joe the fence builder, that doesn't explain this fence.

Joes builds a fence. It separates us from a pack of rabid Grizzlies. We may not like that fence, may question Joe's choices of material and construction, but the fence stands and none of us can *deny it, or that Joe, as it's builder, has the *final say He might tell us hey, don't like my fence? climb over it and have fun or if my fence offends you build your own (how sad we have no tools or materials or know how to do such a thing).

How we feel about the fence, or how we choose to use or ignore it, is all on us...but the fence is there, no matter what we do.




*well, we can deny the fence exists, and we can deny Joe has final say, but that's silly

Actually, henry, it's your analogy that is silly.

It's stupidity American style. It's unique on the planet, there's nothing like it anywhere. Half the population may already have succumbed to it which really worries the other half not yet infected who keep warning of the consequences.

Henry - There is no standard setter to the truth of reality, whether descriptive or normative. What is simply is, and would be whether we knew about it or not. What is right (assuming that anything is at all) would be the same whether or not there were a god. Though, I will certainly agree that were there an omniscient being willing to share their insights on morality, then that might be helpful in finding out what is right (assuming we could trust the answers)

Atla - I'm afraid I think your objective best omelette doesn't exist. I think there is no objective and universal standard by which the quality of omelettes can be measured. Also, to make a further and distinct linguistic claim, I think what we are talking about when we discuss good omelettes is something subjective.

Harbal - I mean, I think the reasons why we don't think there is a reason to believe in any gods are pretty clear. Specifically, there's no evidence to suggest that any exist. As for why that has no bearing on morality, morality is more than rules made by the guy with the biggest stick. It, if it exists at all, is a necessary truth baked into the fabric of all possible reality. Gods don't make A equal to A, it simply is. And it is in all possible worlds, those with deities and those without, as is also the case for morality. But, if you prefer less reliance on necessity and more of an intuition pump, we could instead use the classic Euthyphro dilemma, which leads to either any god's arbitrariness or irrelevance in the matter of morality.

No apologies necessary for being a smart arse. It's a habit I engage in often too, though I am doing my best to refrain in this discussion as I am asking for help with a specific philosophical problem.

American style. It's unique on the planet.

AMERICA: FUCK YEAH

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:58 pmThere is no standard setter to the truth of reality

If this is so: your project has already failed. No measurer, no measure (or rather, 8 billion & change measurers, all vying to get the upper hand).

Good luck, have fun, watch out for bears.

And: Euthyphro dilemma. Mannie! He's singin' your song!

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:58 pm
Harbal - I mean, I think the reasons why we don't think there is a reason to believe in any gods are pretty clear. Specifically, there's no evidence to suggest that any exist. As for why that has no bearing on morality, morality is more than rules made by the guy with the biggest stick. It, if it exists at all, is a necessary truth baked into the fabric of all possible reality. Gods don't make A equal to A, it simply is. And it is in all possible worlds, those with deities and those without, as is also the case for morality. But, if you prefer less reliance on necessity and more of an intuition pump, we could instead use the classic Euthyphro dilemma, which leads to either any god's arbitrariness or irrelevance in the matter of morality.

I agree with you about the unlikelihood of gods, but not about anything to do with morality being baked into the fabric of reality. It might be baked into the human psyche, but, in reality, I don't think morality extends beyond human sentiment.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:16 pmIt might be baked into the human psyche

Yes, exactly. It's not in the fabric of Reality: it's in our fabric (and mine is a sturdy denim).

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:58 pm Atla - I'm afraid I think your objective best omelette doesn't exist. I think there is no objective and universal standard by which the quality of omelettes can be measured. Also, to make a further and distinct linguistic claim, I think what we are talking about when we discuss good omelettes is something subjective.

What's the crucial difference between objectively measuring the quality of omelettes and objectively weighing freedoms (and moral realism in general)?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:57 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:58 pm Atla - I'm afraid I think your objective best omelette doesn't exist. I think there is no objective and universal standard by which the quality of omelettes can be measured. Also, to make a further and distinct linguistic claim, I think what we are talking about when we discuss good omelettes is something subjective.

What's the crucial difference between objectively measuring the quality of omelettes and objectively weighing freedoms (and moral realism in general)?

That would be why he mentioned the linguistic claims.

There's (arguably) a difference of type between the linguistic claims 'this omelette is bad' and 'stealing cars is bad'. In one case you intend it such that anyone who disagrees with you must be mistaken, that there really is something bad about stealing a car. In the other, somebody may just dislike fluffiness in their eggs and you likely don't intend to say that they are mistaken if that is their preference.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 4:42 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:57 pm

Daniel McKay wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 2:58 pm Atla - I'm afraid I think your objective best omelette doesn't exist. I think there is no objective and universal standard by which the quality of omelettes can be measured. Also, to make a further and distinct linguistic claim, I think what we are talking about when we discuss good omelettes is something subjective.

What's the crucial difference between objectively measuring the quality of omelettes and objectively weighing freedoms (and moral realism in general)?

That would be why he mentioned the linguistic claims.

There's (arguably) a difference of type between the linguistic claims 'this omelette is bad' and 'stealing cars is bad'.

How big the difference in type, then, between henry quirk's, "this wall is 10 by 7", and stealing cars is wrong?