You haven’t demonstrated that the basis for every ought statement is what you believe to be correct with respect to your goals.
Imagine your friend tells you that he found a new solution to reach one of your goals. If you doubt that his solution is better than your current solution then you won’t adopt your friends solution.
It is true that both your solutions might be incorrect, that there might exist a correct solution that you ought (would want) to embrace if you knew about it. But part of what you want is to do what you believe to be correct. It is at best useless to assume that you might be mistaken, because you can only do the best you can possibly do.
That’s all irrelevant. You need to show that there are no categorical rights and wrongs. You are just discussing certain aspects of hypothetical (instrumental) “shoulds”, which does not do that.
We do think there are categorical rights and wrongs, because it is common sense that designing better gas chambers is not good, however well you do it. So the burden is on the makers of the extraordinary claim.
know what it means for a set to be uncountable, and I don’t have the faintest idea what that has to do with the really physical. So that is perhaps unimportant. Perhaps you are stuck in a loop where you can’t understand what other people understand because you have a strange notion of meaning.
Why should we think that there are categorical rights and wrongs?
I just don’t see any convincing reason to believe they exist.
We do think there are categorical rights and wrongs [...]
What you should notice about this exchange is that you’ve made an incorrect prediction, and that therefore there might be something wrong with your model.
I suppose you mean I incorrectly roped in NMJ. But I don’t think s/he is statistically significant,and then there is the issue of sincerity. Does NMJ really think it is good to design an improved gas chamber?
What I mean is that you predicted that “we” think there are categorical rights and wrongs, and you were incorrect (more than just NMJablonski disagree with you). Moreover, the fact that you seem to think “is it good to design an improved gas chamber” is inherently about “categorical rights and wrongs” indicates either dishonest argumentation or a failure to understand the position of your interlocutor.
I didn’t predict anything about what my interlocutors think: I made an accurate comment about ordinary people at large.
think what I said is that it is about categorical rights and wrongs if it is about anything. NMJ seems to think it is about nothing. If you think it is about something else,you need to say what:: I cannot guess.
You cannot guess? Do you not see the irony in making this request?
Here is the situation: people often use a single word (such as ‘good’) to mean many different things. Thus, if you wish to use the word to mean something in particular—especially in an argument about that word! - you might have to define your own meaning.
Besides—the behemoth Opal (“ordinary people at large”) is a poor judge of many things.
Making the categorical/hypothetical distinction is a way of refining the meaning. I’m already there (although I am getting accused of pedantry for my efforts).
You need to show that there are no categorical rights and wrongs.
I don’t need to do that if I don’t want to do that. If you want me to act according to categorical rights and wrongs then you need to show me that they exist.
You need to do certain things in order to hold a rational discussion, just as you need to do certain things to play chess. I don’t have to concede that you can win a chess game without putting my king in check, and I don’t have to concede that you can support a conclusion without arguing the points that need arguing. Of course, you don’t have to play chess or be rational in any absolute sense. It’s just that you can’t have your cake and eat it.
Categorical good and evil is a different concept to the hypothetical/instrumental version: the categorical trumps the instrumental. That appears to stymie one particular attempt at reduction. There are many other arguments.
Imagine your friend tells you that he found a new solution to reach one of your goals. If you doubt that his solution is better than your current solution then you won’t adopt your friends solution.
It is true that both your solutions might be incorrect, that there might exist a correct solution that you ought (would want) to embrace if you knew about it. But part of what you want is to do what you believe to be correct. It is at best useless to assume that you might be mistaken, because you can only do the best you can possibly do.
That’s all irrelevant. You need to show that there are no categorical rights and wrongs. You are just discussing certain aspects of hypothetical (instrumental) “shoulds”, which does not do that.
Why should we think that there are categorical rights and wrongs?
I just don’t see any convincing reason to believe they exist.
EDIT: Not to mention, it isn’t clear what it would mean—in a real physical sense—for something to be categorically right or wrong.
We do think there are categorical rights and wrongs, because it is common sense that designing better gas chambers is not good, however well you do it. So the burden is on the makers of the extraordinary claim.
know what it means for a set to be uncountable, and I don’t have the faintest idea what that has to do with the really physical. So that is perhaps unimportant. Perhaps you are stuck in a loop where you can’t understand what other people understand because you have a strange notion of meaning.
What you should notice about this exchange is that you’ve made an incorrect prediction, and that therefore there might be something wrong with your model.
I suppose you mean I incorrectly roped in NMJ. But I don’t think s/he is statistically significant,and then there is the issue of sincerity. Does NMJ really think it is good to design an improved gas chamber?
What I mean is that you predicted that “we” think there are categorical rights and wrongs, and you were incorrect (more than just NMJablonski disagree with you). Moreover, the fact that you seem to think “is it good to design an improved gas chamber” is inherently about “categorical rights and wrongs” indicates either dishonest argumentation or a failure to understand the position of your interlocutor.
I didn’t predict anything about what my interlocutors think: I made an accurate comment about ordinary people at large.
think what I said is that it is about categorical rights and wrongs if it is about anything. NMJ seems to think it is about nothing. If you think it is about something else,you need to say what:: I cannot guess.
You cannot guess? Do you not see the irony in making this request?
Here is the situation: people often use a single word (such as ‘good’) to mean many different things. Thus, if you wish to use the word to mean something in particular—especially in an argument about that word! - you might have to define your own meaning.
Besides—the behemoth Opal (“ordinary people at large”) is a poor judge of many things.
Making the categorical/hypothetical distinction is a way of refining the meaning. I’m already there (although I am getting accused of pedantry for my efforts).
Would you be willing to move this to the IRC?
I don’t need to do that if I don’t want to do that. If you want me to act according to categorical rights and wrongs then you need to show me that they exist.
You need to do certain things in order to hold a rational discussion, just as you need to do certain things to play chess. I don’t have to concede that you can win a chess game without putting my king in check, and I don’t have to concede that you can support a conclusion without arguing the points that need arguing. Of course, you don’t have to play chess or be rational in any absolute sense. It’s just that you can’t have your cake and eat it.
Categorical good and evil is a different concept to the hypothetical/instrumental version: the categorical trumps the instrumental. That appears to stymie one particular attempt at reduction. There are many other arguments.