RE: Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?
October 4, 2018 at 11:27 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2018 at 11:30 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Google mathematical realism, it's just trivia...but that's a thing.
Coherence within a system produces a trivial sort of fact. Correspondence is a requirement of objectivity. The moral statement must be both coherent and correspondent.
Like math, those moral statements that follow within a system and are true with respect to what they are modeling, would be as factual (and non trivial) as any other statement derived in the same way. Think about that for a moment. In contrast, moral statements that only followed within a system but were not accurate with respect to what they were modeling would be both trivial..and false. Coherent, perhaps...but misinformed. The third category would be incoherent statements within the system that are simultaneously inaccurate with respect to what they are modeling.
Here, though, I'm describing competing moral statements purported to be objective. They can be true or false, and they can exist on a scale of triviality.
Our moral conclusions are consequential. We have every reason to address them in an exhaustive manner.
(more trivia, but there's a fourth possibility. That some incoherent statement accidentally gets it right, lol. It's my favorite - but it's a longshot)
Coherence within a system produces a trivial sort of fact. Correspondence is a requirement of objectivity. The moral statement must be both coherent and correspondent.
Like math, those moral statements that follow within a system and are true with respect to what they are modeling, would be as factual (and non trivial) as any other statement derived in the same way. Think about that for a moment. In contrast, moral statements that only followed within a system but were not accurate with respect to what they were modeling would be both trivial..and false. Coherent, perhaps...but misinformed. The third category would be incoherent statements within the system that are simultaneously inaccurate with respect to what they are modeling.
Here, though, I'm describing competing moral statements purported to be objective. They can be true or false, and they can exist on a scale of triviality.
Our moral conclusions are consequential. We have every reason to address them in an exhaustive manner.
(more trivia, but there's a fourth possibility. That some incoherent statement accidentally gets it right, lol. It's my favorite - but it's a longshot)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
