RE: Moral Oughts
August 3, 2019 at 7:06 am
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2019 at 7:27 am by GrandizerII.)
(August 3, 2019 at 6:48 am)Acrobat Wrote:(August 3, 2019 at 6:33 am)Grandizer Wrote: "You ought to play properly because if you lose it'll be your last professional game ever"
And if I say I’m okay with it being my last game professionally, than we would say okay.
We can see the goal here is relative.
But when most people make an equivalent moral statements, they’re appealing to some standard they see as absolute, as Wittgenstein points out.
If someone said “they’re okay with behaving badly, and they don’t want to behave any better”, that wouldn’t be seen as okay, something is not right about that, you ought to want to behave better.
Now maybe you and others here have developed your own particular moral language and meaning, but this is disconnected from the common moral language and it’s assumptions of most people, as highlighted by Wittgenstein.
I'm on the phone so can't comfortably quote bit by bit.
Regarding your last paragraph, prove it.
I am not seeing much difference between a moral ought and other types of oughts. You say relative this, relative that. But you haven't countered what I said earlier. Maybe if you meet the challenge right above, I'll be convinced.
Also I remind you, the OP argument is about oughts, not is's