How your taxes are spent...

[myrkul]

Of course moral claims can be justified.  What do you think the entire field of philosophy is all about?

The entire field of philosophy? Epistemology? Ontology? No. Not even the entire section of philosophy that deals with ethics attempts to justify moral claims. Some branches of ethics argue that they can't be justified and I agree with them.

Saying that "murder is wrong" is like saying "blue is a pretty color". It's not a fact. It's an opinion. There are no moral facts, only moral opinions. If you claim there are moral facts then please demonstrate it. Don't just say "philosophy herpa derp!"

Well, there's always "Universally Preferable Behavior" by Stefan Molyneux. Wordy, but it gets the point across.

[1713276245]

1713276245

[1713276245]

1713276245

[1713276245]

1713276245

[1713276245]

1713276245

[1713276245]

1713276245

[NghtRppr]

Well, there's always "Universally Preferable Behavior" by Stefan Molyneux. Wordy, but it gets the point across.

Molyneux's book is pretty much a wordier version of Hoppe's "argument from argument" which says that by arguing with me you presuppose certain beliefs. However, if I don't argue with you, if I just shoot you instead, there's nothing to discuss. You can't say "you shouldn't shoot me because..." since I'm not presupposing anything by shooting you. It's as close as you can get, if you accept that debating is the way to settle these issues but it's not a demonstration of moral facts, only moral presuppositions.

[AyeYo]

Saying that "murder is wrong" is like saying "blue is a pretty color". It's not a fact. It's an opinion.

No, not even close, as always.


One statement I can back up with logic arguments and example situations, the other is purely personal opinion.

[myrkul]

Well, there's always "Universally Preferable Behavior" by Stefan Molyneux. Wordy, but it gets the point across.

Molyneux's book is pretty much a wordier version of Hoppe's "argument from argument" which says that by arguing with me you presuppose certain beliefs. However, if I don't argue with you, if I just shoot you instead, there's nothing to discuss. You can't say "you shouldn't shoot me because..." since I'm not presupposing anything by shooting you. It's as close as you can get, if you accept that debating is the way to settle these issues but it's not a demonstration of moral facts, only moral presuppositions.

Well, you could argue that by acting, you're presupposing that your action is valid.

One statement I can back up with logic arguments and example situations, the other is purely personal opinion.

They're both value judgments. One is more universal than the other, that's all.

[AyeYo]

They're both value judgments. One is more universal than the other, that's all.

No, no, just no.

I can make arguments for why murder is wrong or at least why murder should not be allowed, which is what he's being asked to do with his currently baseless statements.  You cannot make any logical arguments for why blue is a pretty color because it's purely a personal opinion.

[myrkul]

I can make arguments for why murder is wrong or at least why murder should not be allowed, which is what he's being asked to do with his currently baseless statements.  You cannot make any logical arguments for why blue is a pretty color because it's purely a personal opinion.

OK, so, You can argue that murder is wrong.

All the same arguments apply to aggression. (stealing, attacking, etc)

[NghtRppr]

One statement I can back up with logic arguments and example situations, the other is purely personal opinion.

They are both opinions.

I can make arguments for why murder is wrong or at least why murder should not be allowed, which is what he's being asked to do with his currently baseless statements.  You cannot make any logical arguments for why blue is a pretty color because it's purely a personal opinion.

You're begging the question. I can make arguments for why the color blue shouldn't be allowed or why it's an ugly color. Give me any argument for why murder shouldn't be allowed and I can give you an analogous argument for why blue is ugly.

[ascent]

You're begging the question. I can make arguments for why the color blue shouldn't be allowed or why it's an ugly color. Give me any argument for why murder shouldn't be allowed and I can give you an analogous argument for why blue is ugly.

Your perverse and fallacious logic only undermines any credibility you might have. Whether you believe blue is ugly or not is irrelevant when you don't act on that opinion. Likewise, your opinion about murder is irrelevant if you don't act on that opinion. However, if you act on your opinion regarding blue (i.e. affect change in the world or prevent change in the world), then you may be called upon to justify your beliefs about blue. Likewise, if you affect change in the world or prevent change in the world regarding your beliefs about murder, then you may find a hatchet buried in your back unless you can find a compelling argument in defense of your beliefs about murder.

Now, normally I despise your intellectually bankrupt statements, but in this case, your unnecessary digression into logic, belief and morality afforded an excellent opportunity to point out what a peacock you are when engaging in debate.

Now, back to my original request in regard to your silly statement quoted below:

You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes.

Please justify this last statement.

[myrkul]

You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes.

Please justify this last statement.

fiat justitia ruat caelum

[NghtRppr]

Your perverse and fallacious logic only undermines any credibility you might have. Whether you believe blue is ugly or not is irrelevant when you don't act on that opinion. Likewise, your opinion about murder is irrelevant if you don't act on that opinion. However, if you act on your opinion regarding blue (i.e. affect change in the world or prevent change in the world), then you may be called upon to justify your beliefs about blue. Likewise, if you affect change in the world or prevent change in the world regarding your beliefs about murder, then you may find a hatchet buried in your back unless you can find a compelling argument in defense of your beliefs about murder.

Now, normally I despise your intellectually bankrupt statements, but in this case, your unnecessary digression into logic, belief and morality afforded an excellent opportunity to point out what a peacock you are when engaging in debate.

Can you show the existence of a single unqualified moral fact? No? Then my point stands, no matter what kind of names you call me.

[AyeYo]

Your perverse and fallacious logic only undermines any credibility you might have. Whether you believe blue is ugly or not is irrelevant when you don't act on that opinion. Likewise, your opinion about murder is irrelevant if you don't act on that opinion. However, if you act on your opinion regarding blue (i.e. affect change in the world or prevent change in the world), then you may be called upon to justify your beliefs about blue. Likewise, if you affect change in the world or prevent change in the world regarding your beliefs about murder, then you may find a hatchet buried in your back unless you can find a compelling argument in defense of your beliefs about murder.

Now, normally I despise your intellectually bankrupt statements, but in this case, your unnecessary digression into logic, belief and morality afforded an excellent opportunity to point out what a peacock you are when engaging in debate.

Can you show the existence of a single unqualified moral fact? No? Then my point stands, no matter what kind of names you call me.

I've found your problem.  You're living here:




The rest of us are living here:




No one said anything about moral facts.  You were asked to justify an assertion you made, nothing more.

[NghtRppr]

No one said anything about moral facts.

Unless you want to claim there are moral facts, that only leaves moral opinions.

[ascent]

No one said anything about moral facts.

Unless you want to claim there are moral facts, that only leaves moral opinions.

I already covered that in my post where I declared you a peacock. Your moral opinions are irrelevant. Read my post again.

[NghtRppr]

Your moral opinions are irrelevant.

The fact that there are only moral opinions is very relevant. Opinions aren't justified because they are subjective. I no more need to justify why I think theft is wrong than I do why I think blue is a pretty color.

[AyeYo]

Your moral opinions are irrelevant.

The fact that there are only moral opinions is very relevant. Opinions aren't justified because they are subjective. I no more need to justify why I think theft is wrong than I do why I think blue is a pretty color.

Read his post again and strain really hard.  If you try hard enough, you'll understand what he said.

[NghtRppr]

If you try hard enough, you'll understand what he said.

If you try hard enough, maybe you can make a cogent point.

[ascent]

The fact that there are only moral opinions is very relevant. Opinions aren't justified because they are subjective. I no more need to justify why I think theft is wrong than I do why I think blue is a pretty color.

You need to justify the consequences affected in the real world because of those opinions. If the opinions are not the cause of anything you affected in the real world, then nobody cares about your opinion. This whole discussion is predicated on the premise that there are consequences to your opinions. Otherwise, all of your opinions are moot.

[NghtRppr]

You need to justify the consequences affected in the real world because of those opinions. If the opinions are not the cause of anything you affected in the real world, then nobody cares about your opinion. This whole discussion is predicated on the premise that there are consequences to your opinions. Otherwise, all of your opinions are moot.

You shouldn't do things that are wrong. If you do something that is wrong, you should pay restitution. Stealing is wrong. Therefore you shouldn't steal. If you do steal, you should pay restitution.

If you mean consequences other than that, you'll need to clarify.

[AyeYo]

You need to justify the consequences affected in the real world because of those opinions. If the opinions are not the cause of anything you affected in the real world, then nobody cares about your opinion. This whole discussion is predicated on the premise that there are consequences to your opinions. Otherwise, all of your opinions are moot.

You shouldn't do things that are wrong. If you do something that is wrong, you should pay restitution. Stealing is wrong. Therefore you shouldn't steal. If you do steal, you should pay restitution.

If you mean consequences other than that, you'll need to clarify.

You missed the mark by a few miles. 

You're supposed to be justifying everyone following your beliefs even if it's guaranteed to destroy the planet, remember?  I didn't see any of that going on in your post.

[NghtRppr]

You're supposed to be justifying everyone following your beliefs even if it's guaranteed to destroy the planet, remember?

Like I said (several times now), I can't justify why people should think stealing is wrong, regardless of consequences, anymore than I can justify why people should think blue is a pretty color. You either agree with me or you don't.