Part 4 brings us to the section in the article on moral realism on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy labeled “Epistemology”. Hopefully this is better than what we’ve seen so far but I’m not going to be holding my breath.
Today, we get on to part 3 of the entry on moral realism, found on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy site and I very much hope that they can do better this time out than they have in the past.
The problem, for those who have been reading along, is that the entire “argument” for moral realism has been pointing out all of its detractors and then whining about it because it doesn’t make advocates happy.
Today, we’re going to take a look at section 1 of the article on Moral Realism, posted over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This time out, we’re evaluating a section that they call “Moral Disagreement.” Will it make any sense? Only time will tell.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on moral realism of late, for obvious reasons, and I’m still not remotely convinced that it holds any water. Therefore, I wanted to grab something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and at least start to talk about the article in passing. It just doesn’t demonstrate anything objectively real.
This time, we’ll just go over the introduction, otherwise this is going to be a very, very long post. I’ll come back and look at the rest as time allows, working one section at a time. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 0→
I was listening to a couple of videos and the idea of morality came up. To their credit, they admitted that morality is entirely subjective, but they said that, if you start off with the idea that well-being is your goal, then you can make objective decisions from that point forward.
So I was watching some videos today and I found one where they claimed that the logical absolutes were absolute as a bald assertion.
I entirely disagree. The logical absolutes exist because we’ve never had a single observation where they didn’t hold true. In fact, we can’t even imagine a situation where A isn’t A. We don’t even know what that might look like.
Therefore, the laws of logic, like everything else in rational human thought, they aren’t absolute but they certainly hold up based on every single observation that we’ve ever made. And there are a lot of people who just don’t like that. Continue reading Logic isn’t an Assumption→
Let’s piss some more people off. That tends to happen a lot whenever I open my mouth on certain subjects so let’s do some more of that.
This is a multi-faceted post that’s going to wander and it comes from a number of different sources, mostly YouTube videos that I’ve seen in recent days. I’ll link to all of those below so you can go and see what I’m talking about.
I recently had someone mention an essay, written by Peter van Inwagen, which purports to be an interesting, perhaps even persuasive look at reasons to be a Christian. So, why not, says I? Let’s go take a look at it and see if it stands up to critical scrutiny.
I’ve been having a lot of discussions on philosophy lately and most don’t go well. There are a lot of people who seem to think that philosophy is a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem without exception and that’s just not how any of this works.
Not that most of these people care. So I wanted to talk about a recent example or two and why these people just need a lot of help. Continue reading Philosophy Isn’t Special→
I keep telling myself that I won’t respond to this because it isn’t going to change anything, but every once in a while, I have to, because this time, it wasn’t just once. I could ignore it if it was once. It was twice in a row that Matt Dillahunty lost the intellectual thread and started ranting.