Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Debating Metaethics?

Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 12:16:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

I don't mind debating against Moral Realism (Moral Realism being the most rational view in metaethics)! You, Pro and I, Con. Let me know. Sounds like fun!
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 12:21:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2015 12:16:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

I don't mind debating against Moral Realism (Moral Realism being the most rational view in metaethics)! You, Pro and I, Con. Let me know. Sounds like fun!

Since I never had the pleasure to debate against skepticism before, it does sound like a lot of fun, indeed!
I'll open a debate once I am finished with my current one.
Moral realism vs Pyrrhonism?
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 12:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2015 12:21:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/23/2015 12:16:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

I don't mind debating against Moral Realism (Moral Realism being the most rational view in metaethics)! You, Pro and I, Con. Let me know. Sounds like fun!

Since I never had the pleasure to debate against skepticism before, it does sound like a lot of fun, indeed!
I'll open a debate once I am finished with my current one.
Moral realism vs Pyrrhonism?

Sure
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:49:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

Depending on how you would interpret Objectivism, I could do pro on naturalism (assuming that we agree on definitions beforehand, of course).
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
Romanii
Posts: 5,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:17:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:

Moral Realism (Non-Naturalism)

I'll be Con, but how would you define it for the purposes of the debate?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:16:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 6:49:33 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

Depending on how you would interpret Objectivism,
I have no interpretation of objectivism. Outside the US, hardly anyone knows about it.

I could do pro on naturalism (assuming that we agree on definitions beforehand, of course).
What moral naturalism is or is not you have to decide.
How would you outline this position?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:20:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 7:17:52 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:

Moral Realism (Non-Naturalism)

I'll be Con, but how would you define it for the purposes of the debate?

There exist irreducibly non-natural moral facts.
Some moral beliefs are true.
They are in virtue of being cognitive upshots to those facts.

What opposing position would you propose?
Romanii
Posts: 5,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:37:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 8:20:46 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:17:52 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:

Moral Realism (Non-Naturalism)

I'll be Con, but how would you define it for the purposes of the debate?

There exist irreducibly non-natural moral facts.
Some moral beliefs are true.
They are in virtue of being cognitive upshots to those facts.

What opposing position would you propose?

I meant like how exactly would you define a "non-natural moral fact"
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:46:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 8:37:15 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:20:46 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:17:52 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:

Moral Realism (Non-Naturalism)

I'll be Con, but how would you define it for the purposes of the debate?

There exist irreducibly non-natural moral facts.
Some moral beliefs are true.
They are in virtue of being cognitive upshots to those facts.

What opposing position would you propose?

I meant like how exactly would you define a "non-natural moral fact"
Non-natural in the sense that they are out there in "Plato's heaven". Basically moral platonism. Non-physical, non-mental.
Romanii
Posts: 5,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:52:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 8:46:04 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:37:15 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:20:46 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:17:52 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:

Moral Realism (Non-Naturalism)

I'll be Con, but how would you define it for the purposes of the debate?

There exist irreducibly non-natural moral facts.
Some moral beliefs are true.
They are in virtue of being cognitive upshots to those facts.

What opposing position would you propose?

I meant like how exactly would you define a "non-natural moral fact"
Non-natural in the sense that they are out there in "Plato's heaven". Basically moral platonism. Non-physical, non-mental.

Alright, I'd take you up on that.
Not for a week or two, though. You can see from my sig that I have my hands full with debates atm...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:53:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 8:52:12 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:46:04 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:37:15 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:20:46 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:17:52 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:

Moral Realism (Non-Naturalism)

I'll be Con, but how would you define it for the purposes of the debate?

There exist irreducibly non-natural moral facts.
Some moral beliefs are true.
They are in virtue of being cognitive upshots to those facts.

What opposing position would you propose?

I meant like how exactly would you define a "non-natural moral fact"
Non-natural in the sense that they are out there in "Plato's heaven". Basically moral platonism. Non-physical, non-mental.

Alright, I'd take you up on that.
Not for a week or two, though. You can see from my sig that I have my hands full with debates atm...
Sure
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 1:31:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 8:16:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:49:33 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

Depending on how you would interpret Objectivism,
I have no interpretation of objectivism. Outside the US, hardly anyone knows about it.

I could do pro on naturalism (assuming that we agree on definitions beforehand, of course).
What moral naturalism is or is not you have to decide.
How would you outline this position?

That good and bad are concepts based solely on utility in reference to a given goal (meaning that the good is that which gets one closer to their ends), so that an action is good or bad depending on an appeal to causality and the adherence to an if-then statement.

The only possible moral goal is survival as a rational animal, because no other goals can be held in its absence.

Again, it really depends on what "non-moral" terms mean, but I don't think that this theory poses a "form of good" or anything like that.
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 2:11:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2015 1:31:46 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:16:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:49:33 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/23/2015 11:49:00 AM, Fkkize wrote:
It is so hard to find someone on this site willing to debate some philosophy.
With the exception of God's existence, of course, but these debates are mostly just the same old arguments learned by heart, without properly understanding them.
(Have you met a proponent of Goedel's ontological argument who actually understands the logic behind it?)

My main interest is metaethics and I would be quite happy to debate it at least once during my time on this site.
Topics I would like to debate:

Moral Realism (Naturalism - Con; non-naturalism Pro or Con)
Error-Theory (Pro or Con)
Divine Command Theory (Pro or Con)
Subjectivism (Con)
Cultural Relativism (Con)
Expressivism or any other form of moral noncognitivism (Con)
Ideal Observer Theory (Con)

Depending on how you would interpret Objectivism,
I have no interpretation of objectivism. Outside the US, hardly anyone knows about it.

I could do pro on naturalism (assuming that we agree on definitions beforehand, of course).
What moral naturalism is or is not you have to decide.
How would you outline this position?

That good and bad are concepts based solely on utility in reference to a given goal (meaning that the good is that which gets one closer to their ends), so that an action is good or bad depending on an appeal to causality and the adherence to an if-then statement.

The only possible moral goal is survival as a rational animal, because no other goals can be held in its absence.

Again, it really depends on what "non-moral" terms mean, but I don't think that this theory poses a "form of good" or anything like that.

Now that I read a little on her philosophy it seems to me like ethical egoism, not naturalism. But we could debate that, too.