Well, your arguments only make sense if that is how your interpreting amoral.
That sounds strange to me, can you expand on that?
KPier’s whole argument is that the morality of the action depends on the objective conditions of the ship and the objective evidence available to the owner.
So then he disagrees with W.J.Clifford, doesn’t he? The Clifford quote is all about subjective.
That sounds strange to me, can you expand on that?
You’re objections amount the the claim that “being able to be evaluated by outside observers” should be a property of morality. This is a necessary property of theory of what society should condemn, it is less clear why it’s a necessary property of morality.
So then he disagrees with W.J.Clifford, doesn’t he? The Clifford quote is all about subjective.
And the reason the owner’s mental process is immoral is because it leads the owner to evaluate the evidence incorrectly.
You’re objections amount the the claim that “being able to be evaluated by outside observers” should be a property of morality.
Um, no, I don’t think so. I don’t think I’m making any claims about properties of morality. Mostly, I’m just poking KPier’s/Clifford’s position to check for coherence.
because it leads the owner to evaluate the evidence incorrectly.
As I posted before I don’t find any objective evidence in that quote besides the two observations that the ship was old and ship sank.
That sounds strange to me, can you expand on that?
So then he disagrees with W.J.Clifford, doesn’t he? The Clifford quote is all about subjective.
You’re objections amount the the claim that “being able to be evaluated by outside observers” should be a property of morality. This is a necessary property of theory of what society should condemn, it is less clear why it’s a necessary property of morality.
And the reason the owner’s mental process is immoral is because it leads the owner to evaluate the evidence incorrectly.
Um, no, I don’t think so. I don’t think I’m making any claims about properties of morality. Mostly, I’m just poking KPier’s/Clifford’s position to check for coherence.
As I posted before I don’t find any objective evidence in that quote besides the two observations that the ship was old and ship sank.