@@dominiks5068 I'm pretty sure they do? Like, not in person obviously, but when a content creator is speaking online, they'll usually refer to themselves by the name they're known for. Or maybe not. I don't really pay much attention to this kind of thing, lol. But it doesn't seem unusual to me.
People disagree with facts often. E.g. financial facts, health facts People do not adhere to facts they agree with often. E.g. financial facts, health facts Facts and rules are not invalid just because people disagree with them or do not adhere to them. Facts never have been known to possess a person like a demon and force them into action. Yet facts are still facts. Regards, Facts R. Real
Experts of facts exist of any type where the facts are complex or complicated to come to, understand, or apply. E.g. medical, physical, legal, psychological, and yes moral. Parents for instance are intended to be a basic expert for character to help educate their child to be civil and have good character. Character which involves ethics, morals, and virtues. E.g. work ethic, not biting or hitting or lying, and patience Expecting a child to develop those things on their own seems highly unreasonable
Error theorists claim that moral judgments are beliefs or propositions that can be true or false. "Slavery is wrong" is analogous to "grass is green". It attributes the property of wrongness to slavery, just as "grass is green" attributes the property of greenness to grass. But the error theorist does not think that there are any moral properties. Hence the name "error theory" -- all moral judgments involve an error insofar as they attribute properties that do not exist. Emotivists claim that moral judgments are expressions of emotional attitudes. "Slavery is wrong" is interpreted as meaning something like "boo to slavery!" As such, it's not even a candidate for truth or falsehood. You're not making any error in saying "boo to slavery!", you're just expressing your feelings. Error theorists and emotivists agree that there are no objective moral properties. They disagree on the meaning of moral statements.
Complex non material manifested facts are much more difficult to believe. Even if they are non moral facts. Facts that can be clearly represented in a material manifestation such as a bird are the easiest to believe. People have troubles with all sorts of facts that are not as observable. Such as the temperature of a room or if an event that just happened in front of them was a certain way. People often do not believe what they do not have emotional drive to believe. Otherwise it would feel as if your mind and body has betrayed you and you are not safe even from yourself.
I've just been confused on why morals objectively don't exist. I didn't really like some of Mackie's arguments like the argument from queerness. I feel like it makes more sense to be agnostic on moral realism.
Our epistemic access to something has no bearing on whether or not it exists. But if we can provide a complete description of the world without invoking it, then it's explanatorily useless. And if what we care about existing only has to do with what exists in the world, then that justifies a negative belief in said thing, because whether or not we are agnostic or atheistic towards it has no relevant impact on the world.
@@DaKoopaKing Except that's clearly question-begging (at least without further elaboration). If you're a moral realist, you obviously DON'T agree that you can provide a complete description of reality without reference to moral facts. As an imperfect analogy, consider a nominalist who thinks we can describe the world without any reference to universals- of course, this is just restating the position, and simply asserting it does nothing to advance the debate.
@@dominiks5068 I'll give you Huemer's ontological argument, that one is brazen and interesting. It's not convincing, but it definitely beats the moral property detector. I think Enoch's indispensability argument is garbage though. Not the worst argument in meta-ethics, but that's a very low bar.
I share his intuition, it seems like if we found out about moral facts that radically diverged from my morals, I just wouldn't even care. What's the problem with the argument?
I'm happy to chat to anybody who wants to, but I'm not particularly interested in Rand/objectivism so it's not something I'll specifically seek out. But yeah, if you know somebody who would want to, tell them to get in touch.
Kane B content, best content. The TH-camr we deserve.
Thanks dawg!
@@KaneB, are you VEGAN, Mr. Baker? 🌱
@@TheWorldTeacher No. Vegetarian for environmental reasons. I don't care about animals.
"I am Kane B" - Kane Baker, 2021
I feel like I'm missing something here. Why did you quote that line?
@@KaneB I found it kinda funny because people dont usually introduce themselves by their internet nickname
@@dominiks5068 I'm pretty sure they do? Like, not in person obviously, but when a content creator is speaking online, they'll usually refer to themselves by the name they're known for. Or maybe not. I don't really pay much attention to this kind of thing, lol. But it doesn't seem unusual to me.
Your the joke you asocial misfit. The label is starting to outweigh the content - not my determination, yet
@@VileVanGogh lolwut
Great discussion! Would love to see a discussion with Mike Huemer next!
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)
Wonderful discussion, it was very informative!
People disagree with facts often. E.g. financial facts, health facts
People do not adhere to facts they agree with often. E.g. financial facts, health facts
Facts and rules are not invalid just because people disagree with them or do not adhere to them.
Facts never have been known to possess a person like a demon and force them into action. Yet facts are still facts.
Regards,
Facts R. Real
Experts of facts exist of any type where the facts are complex or complicated to come to, understand, or apply.
E.g. medical, physical, legal, psychological, and yes moral.
Parents for instance are intended to be a basic expert for character to help educate their child to be civil and have good character. Character which involves ethics, morals, and virtues. E.g. work ethic, not biting or hitting or lying, and patience
Expecting a child to develop those things on their own seems highly unreasonable
wasnt Kane in a vaush video? Can someone send me the link to it?
I've never spoken to him
@@KaneB oh
@@pizzaburger9928 Maybe you thought of Perspective Philosophy, he was on a vaush stream
@@john_the_fisherman44 maybe
Sweet
Very interesting !
Is error theory the same as emotivism?
Error theorists claim that moral judgments are beliefs or propositions that can be true or false. "Slavery is wrong" is analogous to "grass is green". It attributes the property of wrongness to slavery, just as "grass is green" attributes the property of greenness to grass. But the error theorist does not think that there are any moral properties. Hence the name "error theory" -- all moral judgments involve an error insofar as they attribute properties that do not exist.
Emotivists claim that moral judgments are expressions of emotional attitudes. "Slavery is wrong" is interpreted as meaning something like "boo to slavery!" As such, it's not even a candidate for truth or falsehood. You're not making any error in saying "boo to slavery!", you're just expressing your feelings.
Error theorists and emotivists agree that there are no objective moral properties. They disagree on the meaning of moral statements.
Complex non material manifested facts are much more difficult to believe. Even if they are non moral facts.
Facts that can be clearly represented in a material manifestation such as a bird are the easiest to believe.
People have troubles with all sorts of facts that are not as observable. Such as the temperature of a room or if an event that just happened in front of them was a certain way. People often do not believe what they do not have emotional drive to believe. Otherwise it would feel as if your mind and body has betrayed you and you are not safe even from yourself.
I've just been confused on why morals objectively don't exist. I didn't really like some of Mackie's arguments like the argument from queerness. I feel like it makes more sense to be agnostic on moral realism.
Our epistemic access to something has no bearing on whether or not it exists. But if we can provide a complete description of the world without invoking it, then it's explanatorily useless. And if what we care about existing only has to do with what exists in the world, then that justifies a negative belief in said thing, because whether or not we are agnostic or atheistic towards it has no relevant impact on the world.
@@DaKoopaKing Except that's clearly question-begging (at least without further elaboration). If you're a moral realist, you obviously DON'T agree that you can provide a complete description of reality without reference to moral facts. As an imperfect analogy, consider a nominalist who thinks we can describe the world without any reference to universals- of course, this is just restating the position, and simply asserting it does nothing to advance the debate.
love your content, but the moral detector argument against realism might be the worst one in the history of philosophy
All arguments in meta-ethics are garbage, period. The moral property detector argument is no worse than any of the other ones.
@@KaneB well I like Enoch's Indispensability Argument and Huemer's Ontological Argument, but obviously you disagree
@@dominiks5068 I'll give you Huemer's ontological argument, that one is brazen and interesting. It's not convincing, but it definitely beats the moral property detector. I think Enoch's indispensability argument is garbage though. Not the worst argument in meta-ethics, but that's a very low bar.
I share his intuition, it seems like if we found out about moral facts that radically diverged from my morals, I just wouldn't even care. What's the problem with the argument?
It might be interesting to see Kane B discuss differences with or debate a student of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
I'm happy to chat to anybody who wants to, but I'm not particularly interested in Rand/objectivism so it's not something I'll specifically seek out. But yeah, if you know somebody who would want to, tell them to get in touch.
Objectivism is dumb.