(July 31, 2019 at 7:21 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: ir wouldn’t really matter if it was simply on account of an inner voice that something -is wrong-. You’d still need to add at least one evaluative premise to get -ought not- steal from that inner voice.

It’s a feature of all moral systems, explicit or silent.

Ought not do wrong and stealing is wrong are not identical statements. There’s your evaluative premise. You -do- need to add that if you’re offering a full rational variant of the deontological product.

It doesn’t matter what my inner voice says, x is objectively wrong regardless.

All you seem to be suggesting which flys in the direct opposition to most people’s understanding of morality, is indicating that moral
Statements such as stealing is wrong, are descriptive rather than normative.

You don’t understand, lol. Regardless of whether things are objectively or subjectively wrong, the -is wrong- requires an evaluative premise like - and you shouldn’t do wrong- to rationally create the inference that you shouldn’t steal.

Stealing is wrong. K, no gods here.
You shouldn’t do wrong. K, no gods here.

Therefore you shouldn’t steal. Still no gods.

Stealing is wrong...is...a descriptive statement.

You shouldn’t steal is a normative statement. The product of a descriptive statement and an evaluative premise.

That...is.....the.....is.....ought......dilemma.

Understand? I’m not concerned with most people’s understanding, particularly if you’re the barometer. Are you, or are you trying to improve your understanding?

Is your “objection” - fuck man, a lot of people don’t get this subject or it’s terms that a lot of people aren’t interested in and don’t have the patience for- ?

Yeah, no shit, and you’re one of them.

(July 31, 2019 at 7:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You don’t understand, lol. Regardless of whether things are objectively or subjectively wrong, the -is wrong- requires an evaluative premise like - and you shouldn’t do wrong- to rationally create the inference that you shouldn’t steal.

Stealing is wrong. K, no gods here.
You shouldn’t do wrong. K, no gods here.

Therefore you shouldn’t steal. Still no gods.

Stealing is wrong...is...a descriptive statement.

You shouldn’t steal is a normative statement. The product of a descriptive statement and an evaluative premise.

That...is.....the.....is.....ought......dilemma.

Understand? I’m not concerned with most people’s understanding, particularly if you’re the barometer. Are you, or are you trying to improve your understanding?

Is your “objection” - fuck man, a lot of people don’t get this subject or it’s terms that a lot of people aren’t interested in and don’t have the patience for- ?

Yeah, no shit, and you’re one of them.

Wrong:
“Descriptive statement: give an account of how the world is without saying it’s good or bad.

Normative statements: express an evaluation, saying something is good or bad, better or worse relative to some standard or alternative. “

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logi...steps/9174

Go and learn,

Read your own post again. What sort of premise do you need to express an evaluation?

Might that be an “evaluative premise”....?

What sort of premise might you need to express a descriptive statement? Something like “x is......”.....?

Moral statements, fully expressed and cogently formed, take a descriptive premise and apply an evaluative premise in order to produce a normative inference.

That’s how subjectivist and objectivist moral reasoning works.

Notice that there are no gods in either case?

(July 31, 2019 at 7:52 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Read your own post again. What sort of premise do you need to express an evaluation?

Might that be an “evaluative premise”....?

What sort of premise might you need to express a descriptive statement? Something like “x is......”.....?

Moral statements, fully expressed and cogently formed, take a descriptive premise and apply an evaluative premise in order to produce a normative inference.

That’s how subjectivist and objectivist moral reasoning works.

Notice that there are no gods in either case?

Read what you said.

Saying stealing is bad is a normative statement, not a descriptive one as you indicated.

Descriptive statements don’t say whether things are good or bad.

To quote you, so you don’t forget what you said: “ Stealing is wrong...is...a descriptive statement.”

Sure they do. Saying stealing is bad only describes what it is. Not what you should or shouldn’t do about that.

That takes an evaluative premise.

That’s the is ought dilemma for the umpteenth time in so many threads. Other than this reducing your constant temper tantrums to...temper tantrums, there’s exactly no reason to argue this point. It’s a common basis of all moral reasoning.

You’ve already expressed your own descriptive statement, and your own evaluative premise, many times just in this thread.

X is bad
You shouldn’t do bad
Therefore you shouldn’t do x.

To show why this doesn’t work without the evaluative premise

Tim is a man
Therefore you shouldn’t be Tim.

Anything missing?

---

That you may silently assume some evaluative premise, and assume that it’s so ubiquitous as to not need mentioning, is s product of your deontological conditioning- this was done to you by society, and that’s why you expect it to be shared in the first place.

(July 31, 2019 at 8:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Saying stealing is bad only describes what it is.

Saying Stealing is bad is a normative statement, you claimed it was descriptive.

Judging that you refuse to acknowledge this, just seems to be blatant dishonesty on your part

Calling you a simpleton is also a simple descriptive statement. I’d have to add the evaluative premise “you shouldnt be a simpleton” to - rationally infer- the normative...therefore you should endeavor to be unlike yourself.

A different evaluative premise yields a different normative statement.

Well use Tim again.

-and you shouldnt be a man- would be required to make the inference follow.

Just as altering the evaluative premise to “ and you should be a man” will make the statement a non seq.

Same goes for stealing. We can agree to the descriptive statement, but if my evaluative premise is @ it’s okay to do a bad thing sometimes” then.,.-therefore you shouldn’t steal- no longer follows.

Follow? Rhetorical, I know you can’t, and that’s why you should endeavor to be unlike yourself.

(July 31, 2019 at 7:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(July 31, 2019 at 7:06 pm)Grandizer Wrote: It's not simply this one general rule, it's a set of more specific ones. Remember, I said the rules are unwritten, and they are often implied (not explicit). And in some cases, quite circumstantial and malleable.

I gave you a few examples already of social powers setting oughts and ought nots.

Now you tell me where are you getting the oughts and ought nots, if it's not from human beings employing reason (or even not employing it well). If (as you say) we ought not to steal because stealing is wrong, what is making stealing wrong? Sure, you have an inner voice that tells you stealing is wrong, but is it wrong just because your inner voice says so?

If wrong is intrinsic/objective, what are some specifics rule that I need, that’s not covered by the general rule ought not do things that are wrong?

Stealing is objectively wrong in your view.

I don’t need to be specific and say you ought not steal, when all I need to say is you ought not do things that are objectively wrong.

Ok, I ought not to. Thanks for setting the ought for me, though really I didn't need it since I'm in agreement that I ought not to.

Did it take your God to set the ought? No, you did it in accordance with your personal attitude and experiences. Stealing causes some form of harm to others. Since it's bad for us to do this, then we ought not to do it. It's that simple.

The shared ought not do, a product of your shared culture, is doing the normative work in your agreement.

-and mine... though, obviously, if we weren’t dealing in a simpletons language we’d be a little more nuanced than a childish deontological absolute.



Still missing any gods.