41–50 of 165 posts
What if we say "cheating is not allowed". Can we blame them then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you just probably never thought about what "knowing" actually means. Put simply, he wasn't there when Washington was President so he can only believe that historical resources are telling the truth.
Sure, or if he'd been alive, he could only believe his senses are telling the truth :-/
The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too. This is the problem I have with many p…
Including everything you just wrote. I'm not sure why you're so down on his claims when your position is circular at best.
Is everything relative so everyone has a valid opinion? Or is everything relative so that nobody has a valid opinion? Either way, why do you care?
The ignorance is much easier to process upon learning that the author works at an episcopal church and is on the committee of two "Societies of Christian Philosophers". http://www.justinmcbrayer.com/#!leadership/c53p
This is a popular far right talking point, fear or "moral relativism" and the ridiculous assertion that millions of kids are being indoctrinated into it by public schools. It's horse shit.
Are there moral facts?
I think if you could show that certain morals were genetic and present in the majority, rather than learned, you'd have a basis for calling those moral facts for humans.
Here's an old debate between (professor) Peter Singer and (judge) Richard Posner, where Posner holds this claim that morality is based on these "tenacious moral intuitions" and Singer argues against him: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/fe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I meant was, his son's blank stare is exactly my reaction as a 30 year old adult --- I can't comprehend how this guy doesn't comprehend how stupid his questions are.
No, you just probably never thought about what "knowing" actually means. Put simply, he wasn't there when Washington was President so he can only believe that historical resources are telling the truth.
Since it was quite a useful word that will undoubtedly be missed, why not being it back with a simple redefinition. We could redefine it as "close enough to true that only a philosopher would object". Then we could continue to use the word, despite the obnoxious objections of philosophers.
Epistemology may be all very neat and interesting, but in the real world there is little place for it. We frequently need to express ideas that may not necessarily be "philosophically pure", in order to get shit done in a timely manner. Think of the concept of "fact" as foma.
I mean they are facts in that most everyone agrees on them, which is one usage of the word "fact". But they're not facts in the same way as "the sun will rise tomorrow" or "2 + 2 = 4" (which those statements themselves are two different types of fact also!).
The sun will rise tomorrow is an opinion/speculation. The sun rose today is a fact.
PS: Your aunt Sally called, she misses you.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick Facts are observations that persist no matter how much you wish otherwise. - me, just now.
The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too. This is the problem I have with many p…