RE: Proving What We Already "Know"
July 23, 2022 at 8:40 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2022 at 9:01 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The mountain is harmed exactly as the mountain is destroyed even if it is not bad - this is the same argument all over again. To be fair, it's always bad if you ask me.
-I'm perfectly comfortable saying that we harm all that we destroy. That might be why ethics tends to watch over destruction, or harm, with a keen eye, as items of moral import. You mentioned before that you had to believe that x was not moral content, otherwise you'd be responsible for a whole lot of bad shit. I don't. We are responsible for a whole lot of bad shit. We often call it necessary, and it may be in at least some cases, but a necessary evil is still..evil.
Get off my lawn is not a cognitive statement. You can revise the other statement for consideration into one that is, you could say, for example, that more population = discomfort, harm, destruction...ofc.... which is yet another realist contention. True or false with respect to whatever facts it purports to report.
You actually aren't going to be able to have any dispute of fact over facts with me, that isn't a contention to fact itself - and as realism is premised on a completely non-novel understanding of factuality or truth.....you will inevitably be reduced to suggesting that we get those facts wrong - which is a cognitivist error theory- that any realist is more than happy to agree with. We do morality alot of ways, not exhausted by the set of realist values of inferences. We do make purported realist statements that are in error because they are subjectivist, instead. We do make purported realist statements that are in error because they are emotivist, instead. Sometimes, it's only true that we think more population will lead to more harm - and it does not, or does not lead to some specific harm referenced, or some other set of circumstances is required for that specific harm to materialize even in the face of more population. That our moral conviction is based on a fact of our belief, but not a fact of more population.
Sometimes, it's true that we just don't like the idea of more people.
-I'm perfectly comfortable saying that we harm all that we destroy. That might be why ethics tends to watch over destruction, or harm, with a keen eye, as items of moral import. You mentioned before that you had to believe that x was not moral content, otherwise you'd be responsible for a whole lot of bad shit. I don't. We are responsible for a whole lot of bad shit. We often call it necessary, and it may be in at least some cases, but a necessary evil is still..evil.
Get off my lawn is not a cognitive statement. You can revise the other statement for consideration into one that is, you could say, for example, that more population = discomfort, harm, destruction...ofc.... which is yet another realist contention. True or false with respect to whatever facts it purports to report.
You actually aren't going to be able to have any dispute of fact over facts with me, that isn't a contention to fact itself - and as realism is premised on a completely non-novel understanding of factuality or truth.....you will inevitably be reduced to suggesting that we get those facts wrong - which is a cognitivist error theory- that any realist is more than happy to agree with. We do morality alot of ways, not exhausted by the set of realist values of inferences. We do make purported realist statements that are in error because they are subjectivist, instead. We do make purported realist statements that are in error because they are emotivist, instead. Sometimes, it's only true that we think more population will lead to more harm - and it does not, or does not lead to some specific harm referenced, or some other set of circumstances is required for that specific harm to materialize even in the face of more population. That our moral conviction is based on a fact of our belief, but not a fact of more population.
Sometimes, it's true that we just don't like the idea of more people.
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!
