hunter

It also comes down to the question, how many people have to agree with a principle to make it a principle? Anti-social people believe they can take what they want from others. Does that make anti-social behaviour an ethical principle?

What a moral principle is depends entirely on the moral system. Deontological systems generate entirely different…[Read more]

I would do it the same way the people in the study did, using a representative sample of the world’s societies.

That wouldn’t PROVE anything. That would just be anthropological documentation of human behaviour. Not finding a single human society that agreed or disagreed with any moral law doesn’t prove (or falsify) it as a moral truth. A moral t…[Read more]

All of these were innovations over and above the abilities of the other great apes.

That doesn’t make them moral truths. And it was only with a proper analysis of ethics that we actually “learn” anything about ethics. What do you know about your own morality if you don’t think about it and truly analyse it? You’re simply a smarter ape. Not a…[Read more]

After all, ethics and metaethics are supposed to be talking about a real thing: what is that thing?

No Simon. That is not what ethics and metha ethics are “supposed” to be about. That’s what you think it is, almost certainly due to your lack of familiarity with ethics in general.

So yeah then Simon. It’s dubious to assume there is moral truth. It’s only possible within a moral system.

And even if the universe set us up to have moral systems (it didn’t by the way) that doesn’t suddenly generate moral truth. Humans only started rationalising and codifying moral systems 10,000 years ago and they only started doing so in an…[Read more]

Please tell me what kind of falsifiable test would demonstrate that lying is wrong. I don’t want an argument for what is the most praiseworthy moral system or how we should act. How can you falsify “lying is wrong” outside of a modal system Simon?

There are lots of philosophers who still talk about “moral truth” and “correctness”

They do so within their moral systems. Not outside of them, unless they are theologians. It is an extremely important distinction. It’s come thing covered in the Oxford short introduction to ethics.

You have to draw a distinction between moral relativism as a meta-ethical view and moral relativism as used within a moral system.

In the first case, outside of recieved dogmatic morality (like from a Church or say in an oppressive dictatorship) it’s been recognized by moral philosophers for centuries that you cannot point to any moral truth.…[Read more]

Yeah I’d say if you are up for some light reading, indeed pick up any book by Kant (if it isn’t too heavy) and you’ll be asleep in no time. It’s ironic that it is tediously difficult to read and yet the genesis for a family of moral systems of which modern versions I consider the most useful.

Ethics: A Very Short Introduction – Simon Blackburn – Oxford.

I’ll send you the ebook for free if you like.

As for your categories of morality, they are woefully inadequate. Those are just categories that cover praiseworthy actions, a buzzword for justice and duty (which cover mutually incompatible moral systems). That is woefully inadequate and…[Read more]

I know Simon which books you haven’t read. That is: the entire canon of works on ethics by even the most remotely notable philosopher. If you had…then I’d recognize anything you said. But you impose your own nonsensical idiosyncratic pseudo-philosophy onto the rest of them. How can you possible judge it bad if you NEVER READ IT!? How can you…[Read more]

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

 If ethics means helping in response to need

That isn’t what it means. That’s something you made up. I think, redefining an entire sub-branch of philosophy, before you’ve even read a single book about ethics, is not the best approach. Perhaps reading a book on ethics is the best first step. I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to…[Read more]

No…it covers one structuralist who analyses Marxism. That doesn’t make him a post-modern Marxist. ,Heesh Simon. Pay attention.

It’s ironic Simon because you really fit the intellectual profile of someone who would claim to be a post-modern-Marxist…so I guess it all makes sense. I’ll concede the point that someone can CLAIM to be a post-modern-Marxist. Just as a 16 year old white teenager from America can CLAIM to be a Mongolian-astronaut. Well…good for your guys. You…[Read more]

No Simon. If you “take something” from Marxism from a post-modernist perspective then you are picking and choosing from Marxism. Not BEING A MARXIST. As atheists we can take the few tidbits in the bible that are of use and make something out of it from our atheist perspectives. That doesn’t make us atheist-God-believers. That’s absurd. Just as…[Read more]

No Simon. Anyone who says they are a post-modern marxist is stupid, self-contradictory and is spouting nonsense. It’s like being a God-loving atheist. You cannot be a post-modernist marxist. Jordon Peterson was just making up stupid shit (or pointing to a small handful of werid outliers) so he could overgeneralize and straw-man a broad spectrum of…[Read more]

Yes. I like how you labelled them as conundrums. Because they are ultimately relatively banal problems. You could say the same about LGTBQ+ rights. At a gay wedding do you have two best men and two separate bachelor parties? When they adopt are they both called daddy? When a gay friend goes to a straight friends bachelor party do you go to a strip…[Read more]

No his anti-abortion views are not mainstream. In New England abortion is well accepted by a majority. Another reason he lost politically. In Canada and Western Europe (with a couple exceptions) abortion is broadly accepted by an overwhelming majority.

The idea that someone can identify as a gender (as opposed to which chromosone they have) are…[Read more]