Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 04:24 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:11 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, not every claim is either true or false. That is shallow and simplistic.

It's true by definition. If you have a claim that is not true, it is false.

not true = false

Is it true that X is a unique species?

Biological species concept = true
Phylogenetic species concept = true
Morphological species concept = false

It depends on the context when you are talking about a SUBJECTIVE system.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:11 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  It's true by definition. If you have a claim that is not true, it is false.

not true = false

Is it true that X is a unique species?

Biological species concept = true
Phylogenetic species concept = true
Morphological species concept = false

It depends on the context when you are talking about a SUBJECTIVE system.

If a claim doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it is not true.
If a claim is not true, then it is false.

This is something we have to accept. If a claim seems to be true, but doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it needs to modified in order to be true. Wording is important.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:42 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:40 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Is it true that X is a unique species?

Biological species concept = true
Phylogenetic species concept = true
Morphological species concept = false

It depends on the context when you are talking about a SUBJECTIVE system.

If a claim doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it is not true.
If a claim is not true, then it is false.

This is something we have to accept. If a claim seems to be true, but doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it needs to modified in order to be true. Wording is important.

You're either not getting what I'm saying, or ignoring it.

A claim can be true in one context, and false in another. And with morality, it might be irrelevant in another.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:43 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Here, how about this example.

Is absolute zero a real possibility for a substance to achieve?

Theoretically: yes
Realistically: as far as we have ever observed, no

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, how about this example.

Is absolute zero a real possibility for a substance to achieve?

Theoretically: yes
Realistically: as far as we have ever observed, no

Again, we don't need to know the truth value (whether it's true or false) to know that it has one.

Let's make a claim.... "It is possible for a substance to achieve absolute zero."

This is either possible or not. We don't need to know whether it's possible or not to know that it is either possible or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:57 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:56 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, how about this example.

Is absolute zero a real possibility for a substance to achieve?

Theoretically: yes
Realistically: as far as we have ever observed, no

Again, we don't need to know the truth value (whether it's true or false) to know that it has one.

Let's make a claim.... "It is possible for a substance to achieve absolute zero."

This is either possible or not. We don't need to know whether it's possible or not to know that it is either possible or not.

Theoretically it is. Realistically we have never observed that it is possible (by your standard, that makes it false)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:40 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Is it true that X is a unique species?

Biological species concept = true
Phylogenetic species concept = true
Morphological species concept = false

It depends on the context when you are talking about a SUBJECTIVE system.

If a claim doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it is not true.
If a claim is not true, then it is false.

This is something we have to accept. If a claim seems to be true, but doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it needs to modified in order to be true. Wording is important.

Not strictly, think about maps, maps are false, but they are great way of conveying information simply, false, but useful.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 05:24 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:21 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:40 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If a claim doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it is not true.
If a claim is not true, then it is false.

This is something we have to accept. If a claim seems to be true, but doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it needs to modified in order to be true. Wording is important.

Not strictly, think about maps, maps are false, but they are great way of conveying information simply, false, but useful.

Which type of map are you talking about? Because depending on the context, they are more right or more wrong. (Mollweide, cylindrical, globe, etc)

You'll need to actually show me how my examples are wrong instead of just stating that they are. (Subjective systems, are subject to interpretation. Meaning that a single situation/thing, could be both wrong and right depending on the context)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:21 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Not strictly, think about maps, maps are false, but they are great way of conveying information simply, false, but useful.

Which type of map are you talking about? Because depending on the context, they are more right or more wrong. (Mollweide, cylindrical, globe, etc)

You'll need to actually show me how my examples are wrong instead of just stating that they are. (Subjective systems, are subject to interpretation. Meaning that a single situation/thing, could be both wrong and right depending on the context)

Take the map of a subway, the shape of the tracks is wrong, they are not actually colour coordinated, I'm talking really obvious basic things here, but it ultimately tells you more information than actually walking through the tunnels, basically, unnecessary information can be cut out to give you an oversimplified model that is wrong but useful.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 05:39 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:26 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which type of map are you talking about? Because depending on the context, they are more right or more wrong. (Mollweide, cylindrical, globe, etc)

You'll need to actually show me how my examples are wrong instead of just stating that they are. (Subjective systems, are subject to interpretation. Meaning that a single situation/thing, could be both wrong and right depending on the context)

Take the map of a subway, the shape of the tracks is wrong, they are not actually colour coordinated, I'm talking really obvious basic things here, but it ultimately tells you more information than actually walking through the tunnels, basically, unnecessary information can be cut out to give you an oversimplified model that is wrong but useful.

That doesn't address my criticisms. A map is a representation of a real thing/place. By not being the thing it represents, it is "wrong" because it is an abstraction.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: