Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:22 pm What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

actually what I think is you, as you reckon things, have no groundin' for your moral assertions...all you can say is in my opinion...

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:34 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:22 pm What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

actually what I think is you, as you reckon things, have no groundin' for your moral assertions...all you can say is in my opinion...

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.

I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your anti-realism

moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:45 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:34 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:16 pm

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.

I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your anti-realism

moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

If there's no moral reality - which means there are no moral facts - then moral realism and objectivism are delusions. If you can't demonstrate the existence of a moral reality and moral facts, then your belief that they exist is irrational. It's that simple, Henry.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:45 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:34 pm

I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your anti-realism

moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

If there's no moral reality - which means there are no moral facts - then moral realism and objectivism are delusions. If you can't demonstrate the existence of a moral reality and moral facts, then your belief that they exist is irrational. It's that simple, Henry.

yeah, stay on track, pete...like I say...

I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your anti-realism

moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:22 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:45 pm
If there's no moral reality - which means there are no moral facts - then moral realism and objectivism are delusions. If you can't demonstrate the existence of a moral reality and moral facts, then your belief that they exist is irrational. It's that simple, Henry.

yeah, stay on track, pete...like I say...

I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your anti-realism

moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

I don't identify as a moral anti-realist. To reject moral realism as irrational is not to embrace moral anti-realism - just as, to be an atheist is not necessarily to be an anti-theist.

But hey, it's the facts that count, not the labels. And moral realism and objectivism are irrational positions. In fact, they're faith-positions - strains of apologetic, with as little to ground them as theistic apologetics.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:49 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:22 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:02 pm

yeah, stay on track, pete...like I say...

I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your anti-realism

moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

I don't identify as a moral anti-realist. To reject moral realism as irrational is not to embrace moral anti-realism - just as, to be an atheist is not necessarily to be an anti-theist.

But hey, it's the facts that count, not the labels. And moral realism and objectivism are irrational positions. In fact, they're faith-positions - strains of apologetic, with as little to ground them as theistic apologetics.

okay...I stand corrected...I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your position...moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:49 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:22 pm
I don't identify as a moral anti-realist. To reject moral realism as irrational is not to embrace moral anti-realism - just as, to be an atheist is not necessarily to be an anti-theist.

But hey, it's the facts that count, not the labels. And moral realism and objectivism are irrational positions. In fact, they're faith-positions - strains of apologetic, with as little to ground them as theistic apologetics.

okay...I stand corrected...I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your position...moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

Yes, because that's all anyone has.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:16 pm And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:16 pm For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:16 pm Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:54 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:49 pm

okay...I stand corrected...I'm not seein' where we disagree, pete, about your position...moral opinions, by your own reckonin', is all you have

Yes, because that's all anyone has.

Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:54 pm Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:12 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:54 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:09 pm
Yes, because that's all anyone has.

Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists.

not really...I understood pete is a *subjectivist the first time he declared it way back when...I just think he's wrong, is all









*or whatever label he self-applies to assert he doesn't believe in moral fact

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:54 pm Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists.

Subjectivists are even slower. It can take them anywhere between 5 years and infinity to grasp that they aren't actually subjectivists.

"Subjective" beliefs guide decision-making and manifest as objectively-consequential behaviour.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:22 pm Wasn't referring to you, one needs to have a somewhat functioning brain before one can be either a subjectivist or an objectivist.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:22 pm Wasn't referring to you, one needs to have a somewhat functioning brain before one can be either a subjectivist or an objectivist.

Weird. I haven't met any subjectivists with functioning brains.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:20 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:12 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:54 pm
Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists.

not really...I understood pete is a *subjectivist the first time he declared it way back when...I just think he's wrong, is all









*or whatever label he self-applies to assert he doesn't believe in moral fact

Or maybe 5+