Peterdjones comments on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism

Peterdjones 1 Jun 2011 22:44 UTC
−2 points

There’s also no coherent situation in which something can be sound and not sound.

Sure there is: unheard compression waves.

Ending the arguments over this stuff.

Should we end all arguments by giving up on any fact of the matter?
- Manfred 1 Jun 2011 23:48 UTC
  4 points
  Parent
  
  There’s also no coherent situation in which something can be sound and not sound.
  
  Sure there is (uses multiple definitions)
  
  So then let’s do the same for the gay marriage example.
  
  Should we end all arguments by giving up on any fact of the matter?
  
  We should end all arguments about subjects where there is no fact of the matter.
  - Peterdjones 2 Jun 2011 0:07 UTC
    −1 points
    Parent
    
    So then let’s do the same for the gay marriage example.
    
    I don’t think you can. The different meanings of “sound” are disambiguated by context
    
    We should end all arguments about subjects where there is no fact of the matter.
    
    OK. Then we just need to have the argument about whether there is a fact of the matter. Oh,,,we are.
    - Manfred 2 Jun 2011 0:17 UTC
      1 point
      Parent
      Not anymore!
- gjm 1 Jun 2011 23:54 UTC
  1 point
  Parent
  If “unheard compression waves” counts as an instance in which something is “sound and not sound”, then gay marriage can equally be “right and wrong” if, e.g., it is prohibited by the Bible but isn’t any obstacle to maximizing net preference satisfaction.
  
  No doubt you want to protest: No, but there really is a single absolute truth about what’s right and what’s wrong, whereas there really isn’t a single absolute truth about what counts as “sound”. Maybe so, but that’s a highly disputable matter and you might do well to offer some actual arguments.