Learn to read. Asked and answered before.
Learn to read. Asked and answered before.
I have read....there's no describable relationship.
The closest thing to a relationship is the one I wrote....
For any moral statement you can imagine a preference causing it.
That's it. That's all you've been doing. Neither you nor zippy have touched the college survey rapist example. That's a tricky one where moral behavior and biological preferences are towards the exact same behavior. Hard to imagine what preference would interfere with a taste for vanilla....but I'm sure you'll come up with something. After all, non-options and imaginary preferences are on the table.
No, a conclusion doesn't follow from a one-premise argument unless maybe it's a tautology. (
@zippy says every argument has at least two premises).
I didn't change anything about the argument by splitting it into a premise and conclusion....I can just as easily split it into 2 without adding a single point of substance.
It's a utilitarian form of subjective morality. We can do that just as easily as imagine preferences....we can switch to imagining purposes. It's been done.
That you didn't know that should alarm you.
Surprise....it doesn't. I'm not sure I agree with zippy...but I can look it up if it really bothers you.
You are not on the same level as Zippy and I.
This has been obvious for most of the thread lol.
If you can't even formulate a basic argument, and you even think your first attempt was an argument, then you are way way way out of your depth.
I filled your request on the first try.
Then you changed your request and I filled it on the second try.
Now you're changing it again....and you're sure I can't fill it again by splitting the first premise into two without including any sort of preferential statement?
It's not even difficult.
What will you do then? Insist I add a third premise?
You're embarrassing yourself. I can make at least 3 premises for the conclusion without changing the original statement. Have you even thought about it?
The problem isn't on my side of the argument.
Your repeated failed attempts at formulating even a basic argument is all the proof I need to confirm that Dunning-Kruger is in effect here.
Uh huh...people consistently proving you wrong is evidence of something.
Go back and read the post where I explained the importance of positionality to zippy. If I remember correctly, he disagreed about where the relevant discussion was....now he's practically insisting that I was correct.
I give zippy credit for not resorting to attacking me instead of my argument, and he's done all your heavy lifting for you, so I'm not going to beat him over the head with this....but you're clearly struggling to hang on because this seems to have wounded your ego.
You should let it go. You aren't the first moral subjectivist to struggle with this problem. Far smarter men than you have failed to solve this problem. Did you preferences haven't been suggested as the source of moral statements before? They might have used "desire" instead of preference but it's not really different in any substantial way.
You'd think if you were correct....the discussion would be over. Moral philosophy classes would be really short.
I don't call people out on that often, you should feel honored.
I doubt you actually understand the DK effect...most people on here don't. Last I checked, Dunning or maybe Kruger aren't that confident about their famous effect.
You won't even comprehend my argument and you'll continue flailing away at it without understanding it in the slightest as you've done through the rest of this thread.
Nah...I've said it multiple times now, you haven't even tried to refute it.
You're removing all possible other explanations for a moral statement or value by imagining a preference.
That's all....just imagining them as causes for morals. If you weren't just imagining them....you'd explain the parameters of what a valid preference is (the premise part of the formal version of this argument) but you can't do that without revealing you're wrong to everyone who has a couple of brain cells to rub together.
Fiction is fun but it's not useful for explaining morality in real life.
don't even understand that you've been arguing against (1) this whole time.
Zippy2006 or you said you were arguing for option 2. If it was zippy....then you never corrected him. If you were arguing for option 1 you wouldn't have blown a gasket at me for saying preferences=morals. I can only guess that you're trying to switch to a moral objectivist position to avoid your failure to defend option 2 in the slave example and I can already see which way that will go.
Don't bother. You've made enough posts arguing for option 2 that claiming option 1 at this point just looks like an attempt to protect your ego.
think I've been defending (2) but all I've been doing is shooting down your inane attempts at assaulting the premise for the dilemma. You don't understand what (2) claims. You don't know what's going on.
Right...
Hey
@zippy2006, would you like a valid counter argument to the slave example that doesn't require appealing to a non-option? I'll gladly give you one that's not only consistent with my previous claims....but it explains why Orel is struggling with a real conclusion other than the slave thinking slavery is morally good.
I don't normally do this, but I think you might be close anyway and I don't want to mess up Orel’s chance at learning something. Just send me a private message....I promise it's not a trick, not gloating, and I won't be upset if you do decide to share it with Orel.
I've stated pretty clearly what's going on. You're imagining preferences.
I gave you the format, and you chose a different topic. That's fine, but you chose to change the format which ain't fine.
Oh? Do explain what the limitations are on "format" then....I doubt I'll need to create a new example to show how you've repeatedly changed "format".
I didn't retype it all out every time I repeated my claim because I thought you could retain information for more than the span of a few posts. My mistake. I should have known better since it's clear you can't retain the entirety of a single sentence. Like I said, you're using a different kind of thing that isn't analogous to morality for the purpose of leaving room to say, "muh, but morality uses 'good' in a totally different way" and the whole exercise will turn into a red herring.
Isn't analogous to morality?
Was that a rule somewhere?
How is a dislike of the stench of trash analogous to morality? It would have made more sense to appeal to a utilitarian form of subjective morality instead of preference. It would show you're wrong...but it would have made more sense.
You literally can't form a valid argument.
Lol sure. First form an argument. Then make it a formal argument. Now you want 2 premises.
Once I give you those....you'll form a counter argument appealing to preference, right? You won't come back begging and pleading for a third premise, right?