Comments on: Morality: How it Works

By: Ofosu

Ofosu — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:33:36 +0000

daydreamcat 我想是不行的前兩者是後設倫理學理論後兩者是規範倫理學理論這兩個倫理學領域要解決的不是同一個層次的問題所以在其中一個領域給出的理論不見得會等同於在另外一個領域給出的理論不過有一些後設倫理學理論的確在規範倫理學上有蘊含例如錯誤理論蘊含虛無主義而在虛無主義之下大部分的deontological theory和後果論都會是錯的 hi 你覺得那些道德宣稱的真假值改變是因為概念被偷換了例如把沒病的牛肉換成昂貴稀少危險而且可能有病的牛肉在你假想的世界裡沒病的牛肉指的東西跟我們平常理解的沒病的牛肉便宜有品質保證的牛肉不一樣所以你的假想世界中的給父母吃沒病的牛肉和我們平常理解的給父母吃沒病的牛肉便宜有品質保證的牛肉也不會一樣換句話說你沒有真的證明同一個道德宣稱P的真假值會因為世界改變而改變你只是創造了一個跟P很像的P’ 然後說P’跟P有不一樣的真假值但是這不算是反例我覺得你應該感念以下略的留言把論證講清楚是你的責任他替你做了這份工作退一步來說就算那些道德宣稱的真假真的會隨著世界的狀態而改變那又如何跟我們的討論有什麼相關在對詞彙選擇容忍度高的討論情況下只要定義好當然就沒有問題不過現在不是對詞彙選擇容忍度高的情況你的論述不完整概念混亂在這種情況下就更不應該用跟別人不同的方法使用詞彙增加理解困難另外我想你的說法不會是依照定義的結果因為依照定義道德實在論蘊含有些道德宣稱為真參考道德反實在論者不能說些什麼我覺得這種因為定義不同而引起的爭論很無聊只是字詞之爭如果大家已經對於蘋果有統一的用法為什麼還會有人硬要拿不一樣的定義來找麻煩

By: Landon Springer

Landon Springer — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:19:36 +0000

Josh,

Forgive me if you’ve established this in a previous post, but if offenses are relative, based on the perspective of the person affected, why would you believe that the standard by which an offense is deemed offensive is absolute?

In other words, if offenses are inherently relative, why do you seem to believe that there is an absolute standard broken by such offense? Isn’t it enough to know that it was relatively offensive, if not absolutely?

Landon

By: BigHouse

BigHouse — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:16:07 +0000

The funniest part, Josh, is it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works…

Not surprising from someone who worships an ancient manuscript.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:45:31 +0000

Sigh.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:40:15 +0000

Let’s see—Josh wasn’t even in the conversation earlier. Just Frreal and Bighouse. Now check the timing:

#73 6:08 P.M. Joshua
#74 6:12 P.M. BigHouse

I will vacate the premises, but I think Josh and Bighouse—and maybe Frreal are all the same person. I’m starting to get scared.

I’m outta here.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:28:16 +0000

I don’t care if I get labeled a sockpuppet.

Joe is God’s sockpuppet, and he puts out the expected amount of substance if our worldview is accurate.

By: BigHouse

BigHouse — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:12:56 +0000

Careful, Josh, that talk is likely to get us labelled as sockpuppets again….

But I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one…

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:08:34 +0000

Joe, to be honest, you’re beginning to get annoying.

I don’t even know what you believe any more and all you do is crack jokes.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:36:41 +0000

Yeah—Rickles doesn’t carry on conversations with himself either.

By: Frreal

Frreal — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:20:48 +0000

Inconsistency is not circular. Shrug.

BigHouse hah except Rickles wasn’t the only one that thought Rickles was funny.