Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
You are not making that argument as an argument against illness facts (well, actually, you weren't making that argument at all though you were not arguing against it, either, but not the point; the point is that you do not count it against illness facts, but count the same argument for the moral case against moral facts, without offering a good reason).ruby sparks said:I am not making that argument?
Imagine I go to the supermarket, and I put the groceries in the cart, but then someone at the supermarket reckons it's very immoral to put bananas next to yoghurt, so he punches me in retribution! Well, that does not happen normally. In general, we do not go after each other all the time in retribution. And it's not out of fear. People actually do not reckon that it is immoral to put bananas next to yoghurt, things like that. My point is that there is agreement about nearly all behaviors, because in number, those behaviors vastly outnumber disagreement. They're all over the place, in every single small thing in our lives. We just do not realize how much agreement there is, because we take it for granted.ruby sparks said:Disagreement is commonplace. Your point about a supposed proportion eludes me.
Indeed.ruby sparks said:Separate hypothetical issue to whether disagreement is miniscule.
Again, as I explained in detail in the other thread, you would need a very good amount of specific evidence to raise reasonable doubts about ordinary facts of human experience, such as the existence of other minds, that humans can and sometimes feel pain, that they have the ability to move small objects around them, that there are bad people, etc., are all part of ordinary human experience. But generally, you do not do that. You do that in the specific case of morality, though you do not give a good reason to doubt it.ruby sparks said:There is a difference between what humans ordinarily think, and facts, as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history.
That is not at all an example. In fact, I was explaining to you why it is not, in the very part of my post to which you reply.ruby sparks said:Forgiveness. It happens.
Again, that forgiveness happens is not at all an example of disagreement about the moral facts of the matter, let alone one in which they agree about the nonmoral facts relevant to the moral assessment, and they are not using an improper instrument.
No, you were saying that my claim was something other than what it was, and you were saying it was another claim I made elsewhere in the posts.ruby sparks said:That's just confusing. I was addressing the claim you had made.
That the forgiveness itself is bad. The deserved retribution itself isn't, but what makes the act bad is (in the example; others are similar) some predicted consequences other than the deserved retribution.ruby sparks said:Yes but so what?
No; while deserved retribution also can be good for some other goal, it is also good in an of itself. When people seek deserved retribution, normally they want it for its own sake, even if they might or might not (depending on the case) wanted for something else.ruby sparks said:Same for retribution?
Yes, clearly.ruby sparks said:Same for retribution?
Does it? Well, it depends on your definition. I'm not married to a word.ruby sparks said:It says more. It says retribution is a good thing.
Yes, and I also say that 30+5=35, that whales are not fish, and that the Moon is less massive than the Sun. I say many true things.ruby sparks said:Says you.