How do you convey thinking there is no objective truth value to any moral statement and then convey that something is forbidden?
Sure, I can. Doing something that is forbidden, results in harsh consequences (that other agents impose), that is the only meaningful definition I can come up with.
Can you come up with any other useful definition?
While reading your response the first time I got a bit annoyed frankly speaking. So I decided to answer it later when I wouldn’t just scream blue!
I might have misinterpreted your meaning, but it seems like you present a straw man of my argument. I was trying to make concepts like forbidden and permitted pay rent—even in a world where there is no objective morality, as well as show that our—at least my—intuition about “forbiddeness” and “permittedness” is derived form the kind of consequences that they result in. It’s not like something is not permitted in a group, but do not have any bad consequences if preformed.
The largest rent I can ever imagine getting from terms which are in wide and common use is to use them to mean the same things everybody else means when using them. To me, it seems coming up with private definitions for public words decreases the value of these words.
I was trying to make concepts like forbidden and permitted pay rent—even in a world where there is no objective morality,
There are many words used to make moral statements. When you declare that no moral statement can be objectively true, then I don’t think it makes sense to redefine all these words so they now get used in some other way. I doubt you will ever convince me to agree to the redefining of words away from their standard definitions because to me that is just a recipe for confusion.
I have no idea what is “straw man” about any of my responses here.
Sure, I can. Doing something that is forbidden, results in harsh consequences (that other agents impose), that is the only meaningful definition I can come up with. Can you come up with any other useful definition?
I like to stick with other people’s definitions and not come up with my own. Merriam-Webster for example:
Thanks for being my straight man! :)
While reading your response the first time I got a bit annoyed frankly speaking. So I decided to answer it later when I wouldn’t just scream blue!
I might have misinterpreted your meaning, but it seems like you present a straw man of my argument. I was trying to make concepts like forbidden and permitted pay rent—even in a world where there is no objective morality, as well as show that our—at least my—intuition about “forbiddeness” and “permittedness” is derived form the kind of consequences that they result in. It’s not like something is not permitted in a group, but do not have any bad consequences if preformed.
The largest rent I can ever imagine getting from terms which are in wide and common use is to use them to mean the same things everybody else means when using them. To me, it seems coming up with private definitions for public words decreases the value of these words.
There are many words used to make moral statements. When you declare that no moral statement can be objectively true, then I don’t think it makes sense to redefine all these words so they now get used in some other way. I doubt you will ever convince me to agree to the redefining of words away from their standard definitions because to me that is just a recipe for confusion.
I have no idea what is “straw man” about any of my responses here.