RE: An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism
June 15, 2019 at 6:19 am
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2019 at 6:40 am by SenseMaker007.)
Only pompous out of context. What I'm saying about Gae's behavior is true. But he's back off ignore because I wish to address some of his nonsense again.
Anyway, you're still confused and equivocating, Gae, if on the one hand you say that all philosophers mean by mind-independence is independent of opinion and then on the other hand you also attempt to justify it by saying "Well, causes of pain and pleasure are independent of minds because they're out there in the world." Which is it? Is it genuinely mind-independence or is it just independence of opinion so that suffering and pleasure themselves, not their causes out there in the world, can indeed be the foundation? Which is it? And don't pretend it's both as if you don't understand how it's a complete equivocation if you say that.
All I'm asking for is consistency but Gae flips back and forth without realizing it. See, this is why mind-independence is not a helpful description. Yes, many moral realists do indeed use mind-independence as a criterion but many others describe it as the independence of opinion as well. The latter description is clearly far better because without it you get equivocation from people like Gae. He claims that that is all that is meant by mind-independence anyway, but then why does he bother with a justification for things being out there and truly mind-independent in the literal sense, then? As per usual he makes no sense.
“The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term.”
― Wilfrid Sellars
^^ This is the job of philosophy and philosophers who are not prepared to quibble with the definitions of philosophy are poor philosophers.
And it's completely missing the point to say that hedonists can still be moral realists because causes of pleasure and pain are out there in the world ... because the foundation for hedonists is pain and pleasure itself and not their causes. The causes of pain and pleasure only matter because they cause pleasure and pain. The causes are not the foundation the reason why the causes matter at all in the first place is the foundation.
And, again, you can't use that as an example of actual mind-independence if you're also going to claim it just means independence of opinion. It's frustrating when people so frequently equivocate but they're completely blind to their own equivocations.
If Gae doesn't think it's actual mind-independence then it makes zero sense for him to then go ahead and give an argument for how a hedonistic viewpoint actually can be actually mind-independent. If X is a misinterpretation of Y then why argue in favor of X?
The truth is that Gae is unable to make coherent sense out of the philosophical material that he reads.
Anyway, you're still confused and equivocating, Gae, if on the one hand you say that all philosophers mean by mind-independence is independent of opinion and then on the other hand you also attempt to justify it by saying "Well, causes of pain and pleasure are independent of minds because they're out there in the world." Which is it? Is it genuinely mind-independence or is it just independence of opinion so that suffering and pleasure themselves, not their causes out there in the world, can indeed be the foundation? Which is it? And don't pretend it's both as if you don't understand how it's a complete equivocation if you say that.
All I'm asking for is consistency but Gae flips back and forth without realizing it. See, this is why mind-independence is not a helpful description. Yes, many moral realists do indeed use mind-independence as a criterion but many others describe it as the independence of opinion as well. The latter description is clearly far better because without it you get equivocation from people like Gae. He claims that that is all that is meant by mind-independence anyway, but then why does he bother with a justification for things being out there and truly mind-independent in the literal sense, then? As per usual he makes no sense.
“The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term.”
― Wilfrid Sellars
^^ This is the job of philosophy and philosophers who are not prepared to quibble with the definitions of philosophy are poor philosophers.
And it's completely missing the point to say that hedonists can still be moral realists because causes of pleasure and pain are out there in the world ... because the foundation for hedonists is pain and pleasure itself and not their causes. The causes of pain and pleasure only matter because they cause pleasure and pain. The causes are not the foundation the reason why the causes matter at all in the first place is the foundation.
And, again, you can't use that as an example of actual mind-independence if you're also going to claim it just means independence of opinion. It's frustrating when people so frequently equivocate but they're completely blind to their own equivocations.
If Gae doesn't think it's actual mind-independence then it makes zero sense for him to then go ahead and give an argument for how a hedonistic viewpoint actually can be actually mind-independent. If X is a misinterpretation of Y then why argue in favor of X?
The truth is that Gae is unable to make coherent sense out of the philosophical material that he reads.
