30 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThen your use of the term "should" is aberrant. You can continue to use the term in that way, of course, but you will probably thereby fail to understand what others mean by the term.
It seems to me that the word "should" be definition implies that the statement is some individual's opinion. Thus it cannot be a fact any more than "that girl is ugly" is a fact.
30 Dec 07
Just to clear up confusion: When I claim that P, I am of course expressing my opinion that P. But this does not mean that whether P itself is true is a matter of opinion. When I claim that you should believe some truth of mathematic, it is of course my opinion that you should believe that truth of mathematic. But this does not entail that the truth of the mathematical claim is a matter of my opinion, nor that whether you actually have sufficient reason to believe that truth is a matter of my opinion. If moral discourse functions differently than this; if moral "shoulds" mean something different than "shoulds" in other forms of discourse, then an argument is needed to show this.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrWell there are a number of things people disagree upon, what is
I don't understand that question. Suppose, hypothetically, it is a moral fact that we should not kill without good reason. This does not entail that the proposition "we should not kill without good reason" is true because somebody says so. Most secular ethical theories claim that moral facts are facts independently of anybody's actual beliefs. It is true, ...[text shortened]... her you believe that 2+2=4 will depend on whether you have sufficient reason to believe it.
the right thing and the worng thing! Who says this group is right about
this and that group is wrong about that? Who gets to say what is a
good reason to kill, again seems like a sliding set of rules to me
there really isn't a real set of secular ethical standards since times
and people change so would the rules.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBut this does not entail that the truth of the mathematical claim is a matter of my opinion
Just to clear up confusion: When I claim that P, I am of course expressing my opinion that P. But this does not mean that whether P itself is true is a matter of opinion. When I claim that you should believe some truth of mathematic, it is of course my opinion that you should believe that truth of mathematic. But this does not entail that the truth of the fferent than "shoulds" in other forms of discourse, then an argument is needed to show this.
But is the truth of "I should believe some truth of mathematic" a matter of opinion? I say it is. There can be no objective truth about whether one should or should not do something. It's simply one's fairly arbritrary opinion.
If I tell you that you should study Korean - is there some absolute Truth or Falsehood to that claim?
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, there are a number of things people disagree about. Scientists can disagree about natural phenomena, logicians can disagree about the validity of a deductive proof. The fact that scientists or logicians can disagree does not entail that there is no fact of the matter about what they are disagreeing about. The beliefs of scientists don't determine what is true of the natural world. The beliefs of logicians don't determine whether some deductive proof is valid. Similarly, secular ethicists may disagree about what the moral facts are, but that does not entail anything about what the moral facts actually are. The moral facts are facts regardless of what any ethicist believes about them. Of course, secular ethicists need to try their best to determine what the moral facts are, and there is no guarantee that they will be right. Similarly, theists need to do their best to determine what the moral facts are, and there is no guarantee that they will be right.
Well there are a number of things people disagree upon, what is
the right thing and the worng thing! Who says this group is right about
this and that group is wrong about that? Who gets to say what is a
good reason to kill, again seems like a sliding set of rules to me
there really isn't a real set of secular ethical standards since times
and people change so would the rules.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
When I'm talking to my students (early teens), I don't say "you shouldn't hit people" as though it's divine revelation. The kids want to know why they shouldn't hit someone who insults them for instance.
The "should" is paired with a consequence. You should not hit people...because hitting people leads to a brutal cycle of violence. There are reasons one should or should not do things and it's an individual's decision as to whether or not those reasons are enough for that person to do or not do whatever.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, that's a substantial claim about normativity that requires argument. Yes, there is a fact of the matter about whether I should study Korean. If you want to determine whether I should study Korean, you would need to consider the reasons for and against it.
[b]But this does not entail that the truth of the mathematical claim is a matter of my opinion
But is the truth of "I should believe some truth of mathematic" a matter of opinion? I say it is. There can be no objective truth about whether one should or should not do something. It's simply one's fairly arbritrary opinion.
If I tell you that you should study Korean - is there some absolute Truth or Falsehood to that claim?[/b]
30 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrSo let's suppose that it's official. You Should study Korean.
Well, that's a substantial claim about normativity that requires argument. Yes, there is a fact of the matter about whether I should study Korean. If you want to determine whether I should study Korean, you would need to consider the reasons for and against it.
What does that mean? Are you sinning if you don't? Will all the philosophers give you an official Frown if you don't? I don't get it.
Will your life be forever robbed of meaning if you don't?
Or is it simply a toothless "fact" with no actual reference anywhere except someone's opinion?
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, so what? Now you're agreeing with me. You think there are reasons why you should not hit people, but you think that whether one endorses those reasons will depend on whether one is of the opinion that they are good reasons. When you use the term "should" in response to your students, you are saying more than "it is my opinion that there are good reasons not to hit". You are saying that "there are good reasons not to hit".
When I'm talking to my students (early teens), I don't say "you shouldn't hit people" as though it's divine revelation. The kids want to know why they shouldn't hit someone who insults them for instance.
The "should" is paired with a consequence. You should not hit people...because hitting people leads to a brutal cycle of violence. There are re ...[text shortened]... to whether or not those reasons are enough for that person to do or not do whatever.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarryou are saying more than "it is my opinion that there are good reasons not to hit". You are saying that "there are good reasons not to hit".
Yes, so what? Now you're agreeing with me. You think there are reasons why you should not hit people, but you think that whether one endorses those reasons will depend on whether one is of the opinion that they are good reasons. When you use the term "should" in response to your students, you are saying more than "it is my opinion that there are good reasons not to hit". You are saying that "there are good reasons not to hit".
There's a difference between those two? The opinion is just implied in the second version.
30 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungO.K. No. No.
So let's suppose that it's official. You Should study Korean.
What does that mean? Are you sinning if you don't? Will all the philosophers give you an official Frown if you don't? I don't get it.
Suppose you believe P. Suppose I show you a valid deduction from P to Q. Suppose you understand that deduction. Should you believe Q? If you don't, what does that indicate about you?
EDIT: I have no idea what "toothless facts without reference" is supposed to mean.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe first claim could be true even if there were no good reasons not to hit. They second claim could not be. So, yes, there is a pretty big difference between the two claims.
[b]you are saying more than "it is my opinion that there are good reasons not to hit". You are saying that "there are good reasons not to hit".
There's a difference between those two? The opinion is just implied in the second version.[/b]
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrGiven that I understand the deduction, and that it's valid, I believe Q. There's no should about it.
O.K. No. No.
Suppose you believe P. Suppose I show you a valid deduction from P to Q. Suppose you understand that deduction. Should you believe Q? If you don't, what does that indicate about you?
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrYour argument assumes that there are or are not absolutely good reasons. But whether a reason is good or not depends on an individual's opinion!
The first claim could be true even if there were no good reasons not to hit. They second claim could not be. So, yes, there is a pretty big difference between the two claims.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRight, you believe as you should in this case. If you had failed to form the belief Q, despite recognizing the validity of the deduction, you would have failed to believe as you should. What does this mean? It means that you are failing to believe in accord with the evidence at your disposal. If it is a habit of yours that you fail to believe in accord with the evidence at your disposal, then you are epistemically irresponsible or defective.
Given that I understand the deduction, and that it's valid, I believe Q. There's no should about it.