RE: An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism
June 16, 2019 at 3:43 pm
(This post was last modified: June 16, 2019 at 3:44 pm by SenseMaker007.)
(June 16, 2019 at 1:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and that's the only sort of objectivity or mind independence that matters in the difference between realism and subjectivism.
The reason that we don't call it "opinion- independence" is that both realists and subjectivists also claim that our moral propositions -are- our opinions. It is our opinion, at least, that statement x is true. That x purports to report a fact, rather than being something like "bleh" or "ugh" - the difference between cognitivist assertions like subjectivism and realism and non cognitivist assertions like emotivism.
I have opinions, you have opinions, we all have opinions. All of our collective opinions are in our heads. When some opinion of ours purports to report a fact, and does report a fact, it's said to be a realist proposition. When an opinion purports to report a fact but doesn't, it's an error. When an opinion purports to report a fact and does report a fact but, instead, refers to some fact of the opinion holder rather than the object (purportedly) being referred to - it's said to be subjective.
This is all well and good and not disputed. So the question is ... why did you make an argument for hedonists being able to rebut the argument, in the OP, by pointing to external ("mind-independent") causes, then? It's like you're trying to have it both ways . . .
I keep pointing this out ... you keep dodging it.
Yet another silly thing you do during a disagreement: respond with stuff the other person agrees on but respond as if they disagree with it. And nobody would be silly enough to disagree with it. Sure. But you do that when that's not even the issue being disagreed with.
