Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

Not all infinite regresses seem to be vicious, are even all ontological or epidemiological vicious? You seemed to claim that this particular one is vicious, when you said that they drain away to nothing. It's your argument and you haven't shown it.

So you say, but even people who argue that they are possible/aren't incoherent admit that if we're looking for an explanation for why there is anything at all then infinite regresses are vicious. it is only by changing what we're trying to explain that they can survive, so it's not on me to prove the viciousness but on anyone claiming them to be the case to argue theirs isn't vicious. Which if you're not defending such a position, why are you pressing me?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So you say, but even people who argue that they are possible/aren't incoherent admit that if we're looking for an explanation for why there is anything at all then infinite regresses are vicious.

They do? Everyone?

it is only by changing what we're trying to explain that they can survive, so it's not on me to prove the viciousness but on anyone claiming them to be the case. Which if you're not defending such a position, why are you pressing me.

Because you have a unsubstantiated presumption in your argument, as such it is not very convincing. That is my point.

 

[Fervent]

They do? Everyone?

The most prominent arguments, yes. I'm not aware of any that say otherwise, are you?

Because you have a unsubstantiated presumption in your argument, as such it is not very convincing. That is my point.

So you claim, but it's a simple fact not a presumption. If there is no original source of the sugar, there is no explanation for where the sugar came from.

Of course, arguing about infinite regresses is rather pointless since all they will ever be is hypotheticals since no one is actually able to provide such an infinite account.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The most prominent arguments, yes. I'm not aware of any that say otherwise, are you?

Doesn't Peter Klein hold to infinitism in epistemology? If so it at least makes sense to ask you why you feel it must be vicious.

So you claim, but it's a simple fact not a presumption. If there is no original source of the sugar, there is no explanation for where the sugar came from.

No. It is just your assertion.

Of course, arguing about infinite regresses is rather pointless since all they will ever be is hypotheticals since no one is actually able to provide such an infinite account.

Ok, we can leave it at that if you want to.

 

[Fervent]

Doesn't Peter Klein hold to infinitism in epistemology? If so it at least makes sense to ask you why you feel it must be vicious.

There are defenders, but that doesn't really show anything.

No. It is just your assertion.

Nope, it's a reality. If not, what is the explanation for where the sugar came from?

Ok, we can leave it at that if you want to.

Sure, though it's rather odd you press me and offer nothing by way of challenge other than basically saying "nuh uh".

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There are defenders, but that doesn't really show anything.

It justifies a certain skepticism when people claims things as true by default.

Nope, it's a reality. If not, what is the explanation for where the sugar came from?

Sure, though it's rather odd you press me and offer nothing by way of challenge other than basically saying "nuh uh".

Thank you for the literary criticism, I was just pointing out a weakness in your argument, that you presumed the viciousness in the infinite regress.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Next Thursday?! I see we are working with closed time curves here I think it will be found to be caused by the "oorsakad" phenomenon. We won't know how it works, but it will explain everything. No I won't try to justify it, but please know that I'm right.

Last Thursdayism isn't extreme enough for me.