Do Morals Exist?Posted 4 years Ago

At 6/17/2017 10:01:19 PM, kenballer wrote:
At 9/29/2015 7:32:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I'd say I'm some form of subjectivist, but I don't know exactly which subcategory. So I'll just outline my point of view and perhaps the more philosophically literate can help me out.

I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are.

I believe that "ought" statements mainly revolve around implied desires. That is, any statement "I ought to do X" is really just "If I desire Y, I ought to do X."

For instance, I could say "I ought to study for tests." But what I really mean is that "If I desire to pass tests, I ought to study for tests."

To me, when we make more general statements like "We ought not to murder," it's just the same idea at work. "If we desire a happy community, we ought not to murder."

So when I see people trying to create objective moral systems, that seems to me as though we're just trying to find the one desire that unites everyone and every action. Personally, I think that's futile because it's different for each of us.

So that's what I think. What am I?

If the scientific evidence showed that the Judeo-Christian God existed, would you even pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?

Hmm, a little funny. I've left this account defunct for over a year and while taking a look back I find a relatively recent response to me.

Unfortunately, I no longer agree with most of what I wrote here.

As to your question, I give a tentative yes.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/16/2015 5:29:49 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 4:57:44 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I mentioned it offhandedly, because my train of thought about morality, though taking a different turn than Hume, did begin with him. And for your information, I HAVE read Hume.

If you had read Hume, as I have said multiple times, you wouldn't be taking "different turns" because he specifically addresses your "different turn" with self-interest/desires. So again, you haven't read him. Go read him and stop whining.

To be clear, I think that desire is the cause of the development of morality, not that desire creates some objective standard.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/16/2015 4:37:17 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 3:55:05 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/16/2015 3:50:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 2:56:09 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/16/2015 1:02:30 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 12:53:32 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/16/2015 12:51:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 10:00:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 6:33:34 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:28:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:22:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
If someone offhandedly mentions information that's related to but not integral to main body of what they're saying, and they happen to be incorrect, and you focus on that information as opposed to the main body of what they're saying, then you are nitpicking.

I've let go a while ago. You're still holding on.

Hume argues against what you're talking about, which sounds like ethical egoism, in Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. But it still makes no sense why you would even reference the is-ought problem at all since its not like you actually derived anything from it. You just stated it. Maybe you've been reading Ayn Rand.

No, I haven't been reading Ayn Rand, and I'm aware of the philosophy diss you just tried to give me. I will again emphasize what I previously said and you basically ignored. It's in bold. It's important.

Had you read Hume, none of this would be an issue. As is stands, it's quite apparent you haven't read Hume. You only have a basic understanding of the is-ought problem and thought it would be clever to "derive" (and I use that very loosely) some sort of ethical egoism out of it. I don't even see how that's possible. You just stated "I believe..." which is fine to say what you believe. But why state Hume in the first place if you're just going to 1) not even represent his views properly and 2) not even explain how your belief is in any way, shape, or form related to the is-ought problem. Perhaps these questions are a lot more disastrous than my "nitpicking", which is really a way of saying, "you really haven't read Hume, back to square one you go."

I mentioned it offhandedly, because my train of thought about morality, though taking a different turn than Hume, did begin with him. And for your information, I HAVE read Hume.

But none of this is relevant at all to what I was talking about: my views on morality. They don't derive from Hume, I mentioned him offhandedly because he got me thinking about morality in the first place, but the fact is you're getting hung up on it and it's ridiculous. It's the equivalent of ignoring an op-ed because there's a misspelled word in the title.

When the user Hayd read my post, maybe he thought I misused Hume, maybe he didn't. But either way, he recognized that it wasn't really integral to what I was saying, so he ignored it. You seem to be incapable of that. As though you can't possibly bother to think about anything else I said for one misuse of terms. It's blocking your thought so much that you actually think I derived everything else I said from it, even though that's clearly not the case.

Whether or not I misused an offhanded reference is irrelevant. You. Are. Nitpicking.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/16/2015 3:50:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 2:56:09 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/16/2015 1:02:30 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 12:53:32 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/16/2015 12:51:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 10:00:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 6:33:34 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:28:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:22:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
If someone offhandedly mentions information that's related to but not integral to main body of what they're saying, and they happen to be incorrect, and you focus on that information as opposed to the main body of what they're saying, then you are nitpicking.

I've let go a while ago. You're still holding on.

Hume argues against what you're talking about, which sounds like ethical egoism, in Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. But it still makes no sense why you would even reference the is-ought problem at all since its not like you actually derived anything from it. You just stated it. Maybe you've been reading Ayn Rand.

No, I haven't been reading Ayn Rand, and I'm aware of the philosophy diss you just tried to give me. I will again emphasize what I previously said and you basically ignored. It's in bold. It's important.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/16/2015 1:02:30 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/16/2015 12:53:32 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/16/2015 12:51:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 10:00:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 6:33:34 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:28:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:22:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
You're not getting it.

Let's look at an example. As you said, the statement "married bachelors exist" doesn't have truth values.

I now make up a language in which "exist" means "sleep", and "married" means "tired". The statement now has truth values. After all, a language is just a set of ascribed meanings.

But once you change the meaning of the words it isn't the same statement any longer. So no, the statement doesn't have truth values because it should be called statement Y, not statement X.

Do statements exist in a vacuum? Does a statement even have a meaning without a physical medium to express it?

I don't see how that relates to anything.

To be honest, we're pursuing a line of discussion because of a statement of mine you saw as unclear, and this is really just nitpicking, so I don't think there's anything of value to gain by continuing on this path.

Well you brought up the "contention", not me. So it's your nitpick not mine.

The David Hume subpoint was really more of a footnote in my overall explanation of my position, and you nitpicked about my word choice. So yeah, it's yours.

"I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are."

Are we really gonna go there? How about you try this for a change. Admit you made a mistake.

I will if you admit you nitpicked something that wasn't relevant to what I was saying in that post.

I already explained to you why you should have said it differently, precisely because somebody who hasn't read Hume could very easily misunderstand you. Nothing in your sentence comes close to indicating that ought statements have no truth values. That's simply not understood from your sentence or even any of the sentences after. So no, it isn't a nitpick. It's extremely important that we try to be as clear as possible. As it stands, the sentence does not do Hume justice. It's as if you tried using slang or some other informal language, which is what your sentence is akin to, and then called an objection to that informality a nitpick. Yeah, sorry, but no. The proper response would have been for you to say, you're right, and moved on. But you just can't let it go.

If someone offhandedly mentions information that's related to but not integral to main body of what they're saying, and they happen to be incorrect, and you focus on that information as opposed to the main body of what they're saying, then you are nitpicking.

I've let go a while ago. You're still holding on.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/16/2015 12:51:09 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 10:00:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 6:33:34 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:28:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:22:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
You're not getting it.

Let's look at an example. As you said, the statement "married bachelors exist" doesn't have truth values.

I now make up a language in which "exist" means "sleep", and "married" means "tired". The statement now has truth values. After all, a language is just a set of ascribed meanings.

But once you change the meaning of the words it isn't the same statement any longer. So no, the statement doesn't have truth values because it should be called statement Y, not statement X.

Do statements exist in a vacuum? Does a statement even have a meaning without a physical medium to express it?

I don't see how that relates to anything.

To be honest, we're pursuing a line of discussion because of a statement of mine you saw as unclear, and this is really just nitpicking, so I don't think there's anything of value to gain by continuing on this path.

Well you brought up the "contention", not me. So it's your nitpick not mine.

The David Hume subpoint was really more of a footnote in my overall explanation of my position, and you nitpicked about my word choice. So yeah, it's yours.

"I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are."

Are we really gonna go there? How about you try this for a change. Admit you made a mistake.

I will if you admit you nitpicked something that wasn't relevant to what I was saying in that post.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/15/2015 6:33:34 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:28:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 12:11:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:22:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
You're not getting it.

Let's look at an example. As you said, the statement "married bachelors exist" doesn't have truth values.

I now make up a language in which "exist" means "sleep", and "married" means "tired". The statement now has truth values. After all, a language is just a set of ascribed meanings.

But once you change the meaning of the words it isn't the same statement any longer. So no, the statement doesn't have truth values because it should be called statement Y, not statement X.

Do statements exist in a vacuum? Does a statement even have a meaning without a physical medium to express it?

I don't see how that relates to anything.

To be honest, we're pursuing a line of discussion because of a statement of mine you saw as unclear, and this is really just nitpicking, so I don't think there's anything of value to gain by continuing on this path.

Well you brought up the "contention", not me. So it's your nitpick not mine.

The David Hume subpoint was really more of a footnote in my overall explanation of my position, and you nitpicked about my word choice. So yeah, it's yours.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/15/2015 12:11:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:22:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
You're not getting it.

Let's look at an example. As you said, the statement "married bachelors exist" doesn't have truth values.

I now make up a language in which "exist" means "sleep", and "married" means "tired". The statement now has truth values. After all, a language is just a set of ascribed meanings.

But once you change the meaning of the words it isn't the same statement any longer. So no, the statement doesn't have truth values because it should be called statement Y, not statement X.

Do statements exist in a vacuum? Does a statement even have a meaning without a physical medium to express it?

I don't see how that relates to anything.

To be honest, we're pursuing a line of discussion because of a statement of mine you saw as unclear, and this is really just nitpicking, so I don't think there's anything of value to gain by continuing on this path.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/15/2015 2:29:41 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:54:59 AM, Surrealism wrote:
You're not getting it.

Let's look at an example. As you said, the statement "married bachelors exist" doesn't have truth values.

I now make up a language in which "exist" means "sleep", and "married" means "tired". The statement now has truth values. After all, a language is just a set of ascribed meanings.

But once you change the meaning of the words it isn't the same statement any longer. So no, the statement doesn't have truth values because it should be called statement Y, not statement X.

Do statements exist in a vacuum? Does a statement even have a meaning without a physical medium to express it?
Forums Home > Philosophy

Do Morals Exist?Posted 6 years Ago

At 10/14/2015 2:23:00 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:44:37 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 12:36:21 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/14/2015 12:12:17 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 10/13/2015 10:25:35 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/13/2015 3:37:07 AM, Surrealism wrote:
I'm sorry that I lack sympathy towards people who don't admit to being wrong when they've been proven wrong. I can't respect them very much, to be honest. But, like I said already. Go ahead and present this argument that, as you seem to be alluding, I have been ignoring.

Sure.

The point of contention is whether or not it is possible for a sentence to be truth functional another way.

Let's say statement X is not truth functional in language A.

I now invent language B in which statement X is truth functional.

Ergo, statement X is now truth functional another way.

Since by truth functional I mean, would make the statement have truth values, allow me to replace that with the current statements you made and let us look at them again.

"Let's say statement X does not have truth values in language A."

" I now invent language B in which statement X does have truth values."

" Ergo, statement X is now truth functional another way."

The problem here is this:

If statement X has truth values in one language, then it must have truth values in all languages. For example: a question does not have truth values. Thus a question in another language cannot have truth values. "Oughts" cannot have truth values in English or any other language.

You're not getting it.

Let's look at an example. As you said, the statement "married bachelors exist" doesn't have truth values.

I now make up a language in which "exist" means "sleep", and "married" means "tired". The statement now has truth values. After all, a language is just a set of ascribed meanings.
Forums Home > Philosophy

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.