Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

The isms are either all me, or I need to come up with my own ideas.  Pick one.

It's completely pointless to reference a specific example if you cannot.. or more probably will not... understand the underlying concepts.

Labels aren't concepts. If you want to apply an "-ism" as you see it to a moral question or one of knowledge (and you have to some degree in this thread), then that's fine.

I'm very happy discussing concepts. I'm not interested in going through the bullet points of your internal wikipedia page.

If you're interested in "realism," then explain how that particular paradigm applies to the OP, or to our discussions of morality. In what way can you arrive at a sensible moral world view that is based purely on what is real, rather than (as I suggest) imagining a non-existent other-world, which is inherently non-factual?

Keep in mind that in this discussion, we are currently not considering real burning witches. We are imagining once-burned witches of another era. We recognize an imagined world in which scenes of burning-at-the-stake is abhorrent.

In short-- I don't think the kind of moral views you are discussing are coherent. I think that you THINK they are, but in fact it's an example of the kinds of categorical conflation I mentioned earlier. If you are actually willing to lay claim to any moral position, and explain why you take that position, I'm pretty sure I can demonstrate that it matches my definition morality-- and that this could not be otherwise.

So go ahead-- take a clear position on anything, and explain why you hold that position in unambiguous terms. Prove me wrong!