Objections to Minimal Moral Realism

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Objections to Minimal Moral Realism

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:24 am

Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
You're clearly more interested in verbal squabbles than issues of substance.
If you're not going to defend your claims or explain yourself then you're not going to be permitted to continue making them.
You need to either respond to posts, or move on to other topics. That's how it works here and how we keep conversations moving.

The way I see it, you're just not able to respond. That's fine, but if you have no retort then you shouldn't continue to make the assertion.
Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
Everything you've said is either false
Which things are false, and why?
Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
or just reflects incompetence with moral concepts. (For example, in "X is right" X has to denote an act of some sort, for only acts can have rightness
Why do you assume only acts can have rightness? Many moral views rely on intention or belief and not actions. I don't necessarily agree with it, but you still need to address it.
You need to be more clear about how X is limited and why. And what even is an act? Is believing an action?

"X is right" is true can easily be "Bob believes murder is right is true" if you fail to restrict the meaning of X.

I can explain why actions matter: because of their consequences. Consequentialism provides justification for moral evaluation. It's something Deontologists have trouble with.
However, it's also easy to make a strong basis for virtue ethics when it comes to character judgement and what makes a person right or wrong without having to talk about an act itself in the conventional sense.
Sunflowers wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:59 pm
And you keep referencing wiki pages. They're not peer reviewed. Academics don't use them or (typically) write them. For all I know, YOU wrote those entries.
:lol: It's the forum wiki page. Of course I've contributed to it. You might be able to as well if you have something to add.
I said we wrote it for the purpose of giving the link to people like you who don't understand the issues with objective/subjective claims.
Please read the article and respond to it if you disagree.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm

That's why wiki pages count for nothing - they're not subject to proper peer review. You are referring people to pages written by people who think they are experts on things they lack expertise on. You, for instance.

I assume that acts alone can have moral rightness becasue it is a conceputual truth.


I said that all objectivist views about morality are insane because they involve attributing to objective - that is, mind-external - features the ability to issue imperatives. And that's insane. I mean, it really is.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:03 am

Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm
That's why wiki pages count for nothing - they're not subject to proper peer review. You are referring people to pages written by people who think they are experts on things they lack expertise on. You, for instance.
If you disagree with anything on the philosophical vegan wiki you're welcome to bring it up.
We develop these resources for the community.
Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm
I assume that acts alone can have moral rightness becasue it is a conceputual truth.
OK, so you do this on the basis of magical gnosis. I see. That is, you're pulling it out of your ass and asserting it to be just so.
Sunflowers wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 pm
I said that all objectivist views about morality are insane because they involve attributing to objective - that is, mind-external - features the ability to issue imperatives. And that's insane. I mean, it really is.
I already debunked your argument.
You're just begging the question here, assuming imperatives must come from minds and assuming objectivity must by definition be mind-external.
You're employing special definitions made to suit your argument and to quite dishonestly manipulate the audience into agreeing with you despite these definitions not holding widespread acceptance among the very people you're criticizing for being insane.

Not only are you wrong about objectivity (a mind can potentially employ objective tasks of reasoning, e.g. mathematics), but you're also wrong about imperatives; hypothetical ones (rather than categorical ones) stem from purpose. E.g. IF something is a knife, to be a good knife, it ought to be sharp because of the purpose it is set to from it being defined as a knife. We can objectively reason imperatives based on goals or ideals of things and the nature of our physical world. It's not that complicated, and indeed it's insane to deny that simple fact.

You're the only nutter here, I'm afraid.

If you don't want to actually respond to my arguments, you should bow out of this discussion.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:09 pm

The less they know, the less they know it.

You don't 'debunk' an arugment, you 'refute' it.

And my argument is not question begging.

This is a question begging argument:

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore P

Here is my argument:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives, then they issue from a mind
2. Moral imperaties are imperatives
3. Therefore, moral imperatives issue from a mind

That's not question begging.

Now, provide a refutation of it. That is, provide me with a deductively valid argument that has the negation of one of my premises as a conclusion and that has premises that are more prima facie plausible than mine. Don't say you already have - you haven't. Do it.

You won't be able to. If you deny deny that moral imperatives are imperatives, then you're just confused (and you really are) and owe me an explanation of exactly what a moral imperative is, if not an imperative. Alternatively, you will have to insist that imperatives can issue from things that lack minds - in which case you belong in a padded cell.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:02 pm

Sunflowers, you need to respond to the rest of my points, but you did present something new here so I'll allow it for now.
Sunflowers wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:09 pm
Here is my argument:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives, then they issue from a mind
2. Moral imperaties are imperatives
3. Therefore, moral imperatives issue from a mind
That's a very different thing from your original argument, but that's also apparently not your whole argument. Clean the rest of it up that well, and then there may be something to look at:
Sunflowers wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 pm
1. Moral imperatives are a subset of the imperatives of Reason
2. Minds and only minds can issue prescriptions
3. Therefore, morality is composed of a subset of the imperatives of a mind, Reason.
4. Moral prescriptions have a single source
5. Moral prescriptions have an external source
6. Therefore, morality is composed of the prescriptions of a single mind, Reason.
That's a mess. Make that as clean as your new argument snippet so it's clear what syllogism is being used and where.
If you can do that, I'll break it into a new post and pin it (linking from here) so that people can engage with it and it will have more visibility.

If you can not or will not do that, then you need to stop blowing hot air.

I appreciate an attempt to make a valid argument, and I've seen very few new arguments for a god; if this is one I'm interested in engaging with it.
Sunflowers wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:09 pm
Now, provide a refutation of it. That is, provide me with a deductively valid argument that has the negation of one of my premises as a conclusion and that has premises that are more prima facie plausible than mine. Don't say you already have - you haven't. Do it.
I already did, in terms of the definitions you're using which are ambiguous. You will need to more clearly define your terms, among other things, if we are to make this into an actual discussion.

A hypothetical imperative isn't the same as a categorical one, and not everybody who subscribes to objective morality believes in the latter.
Sunflowers wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:09 pm
Alternatively, you will have to insist that imperatives can issue from things that lack minds - in which case you belong in a padded cell.
I already explained this in a prior post. If you make this assertion again without engaging with my argument then you'll be in violation of forum rules.
Again, see the hypothetical vs. categorical point, the point about the ambiguity of what a mind is, and others I have made.

You want a real discussion here? Then follow the forum rules and respond to people's points.
If not, then you're just preaching and that's not welcome here.
I'm very interested in your argument if it's a new one and you can formulate it properly, so let's start there and drop the rest of your claims for now.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:19 pm

Oh, and about 'hypothetical imperatives' - yet more ignorance is revealed. A hypothetical imperative is an imperative. Don't you realise this? The word 'hypothetical' refers to the CONTENT of the imperative. It doesn't mean it is an imperative that is hypothetical in thse sense of not being real (Have you actually read Kant?)

So, here's a hypothetical imperative: "if you desire some milk, then drink some milk". Now, that's an imperative. It is as much of an imperative as this categorical imperative "Drink some milk!!" Both are directives.

Now, once more....everso slowly this time.....do...you...think...that...mindless objects....can...issue....imperatives?

Take Tim. Tim thinks that his desk has just told him "if you desire some milk, then drink some milk". That is, he believes his desk just issued a hypothetical imperative to him.

Now, again, do you think that Tim is a) mad as a hatter or b) a sensible, knowledeable contributor to a vegan philosophy forum?

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:30 pm

@Sunflowers It's still a mess. I said you needed to clean it up. You have not.
Sunflowers wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:03 pm
So my first argument - the one you claim is a mess but is the exact opposite (it really can't get less messy) has the following form:

1. All As are Bs.
2. All Bs are Cs

[...]

Here it is again:

1. Moral imperatives are a subset of the imperatives of Reason
2. Minds and only minds can issue prescriptions
All As are Bs = All moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason? Got it. That's clear enough

All Bs are Cs = all imperatives of reason are.... minds and only minds can issue prescriptions?
Maybe you mean to say "All imperatives of reason are issued by minds"?

This is a mess. It's not MY job to fix the semantic structure of YOUR argument for you. I've asked you to clean it up. Not only have you not done that, but you've complained that it's not even messy which it obviously IS messy.
It's not my job to try to tighten up your wording and fix everything for you so I can argue against it. Bad form like this is rife for semantic trickery and fallacies of ambiguity. You're using different wording everywhere, and I'm not going to waste time explaining how to make a clean logical argument.

I offered to pin your argument and promote discussion on it if you'd only make it clean enough to really engage with.

YOU need to provide a clear argument. This is the same issue I originally had with Name The Trait.

I'm removing your post because it's just a lot of hot air and doesn't further the discussion. I asked for a simple thing, and you have neither addressed my points nor provided anything new at all.

Try again, or don't. You're welcome to engage in other discussions here, but until you either respond to my criticism or clean up your argument and post it so we can dig into it properly you're not going to be allowed to promote your argument here. We don't want to waste time trying to decipher something that is by no means clear. We spent a lot of time doing that with #NameTheTrait and I don't think anybody here is interested in a repeat of that.

Sorry, but if you want to discuss your argument, it will be cleaned up by YOU first so that the terminology in every line is the same and the structure precisely parallels the relevant syllogisms.

Sunflowers
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Sunflowers » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:43 pm

ah, you're a control freak as well as an ignorant, condescending arrogant idiot. This isn't worth my time.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:46 pm

I'll respond to this, since it IS actually new (I was posting while this was being posted).
Sunflowers wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:19 pm
Oh, and about 'hypothetical imperatives' - yet more ignorance is revealed. A hypothetical imperative is an imperative. Don't you realise this? The word 'hypothetical' refers to the CONTENT of the imperative. It doesn't mean it is an imperative that is hypothetical in thse sense of not being real (Have you actually read Kant?)

So, here's a hypothetical imperative: "if you desire some milk, then drink some milk". Now, that's an imperative. It is as much of an imperative as this categorical imperative "Drink some milk!!" Both are directives.
I don't use the same wording; interesting how you try to make it suit your conclusions more with that kind of phrasing.

Here's a hypothetical imperative:

"If your goal is X then you should do Y to achieve that goal."

A categorical imperative comes from nothing, a hypothetical imperative uses reason to issue the imperatives based on a goal that is provided. The goal already has the imperative in it; reaching that goal is baked into the concept of a goal. It's not taking an ought from an is, but an ought from an ought.
A computer can, in many instances, give us imperatives based on modeling of our goals.

Obviously the computer doesn't care IF we do that or not. The "Should" here is merely relative to the goal we already provided it and our own motivation which we have already committed to that goal.
Sunflowers wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:19 pm
Now, once more....everso slowly this time.....do...you...think...that...mindless objects....can...issue....imperatives?

Take Tim. Tim thinks that his desk has just told him "if you desire some milk, then drink some milk". That is, he believes his desk just issued a hypothetical imperative to him.

Now, again, do you think that Tim is a) mad as a hatter or b) a sensible, knowledeable contributor to a vegan philosophy forum?
Nice straw-man there, but a desk has no computational power to derive a should from a goal Tim provides for it to compute.
Something as simple as a well designed abacus-like device might, for a specific set of goals. A flow-chart could also do it.
If Tim has a flow-chart on his desk he could potentially use it to get an imperative.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9499
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:50 pm

Sunflowers wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:43 pm
ah, you're a control freak as well as an ignorant, condescending arrogant idiot. This isn't worth my time.
Hmm... so say all the rule breakers.
Just read the rules and follow them, it's not that hard. It goes both ways, and you'll appreciate the requirement to respond to YOUR questions and arguments some day if you stick around.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests