| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Skepticus" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2004 04:13:21 PM |
| Object: |
Re: ethics |
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
In other words, I was discussing ethical behaviour and making the
claim that there is no external fact that makes ethical claims true.
And I am telling you that you are making what is known as a category
error. Ethics isn't about proving the truth of statements about the
actual state of affairs in any particular case,
I never said it was.
Then who wrote that nonsense about ethics above, "... there is no
external fact that makes ethical claims true"?
See the term, 'true' in there?
'True' applies to statements in logic, statements about the nature of
the universe and the things in it, or statements about the actual state
of affairs in any particular case.
The study of philosophy has three separate categories, truth (logic),
beauty (aesthetics), and right behavior (ethics).
You just made a category error, above, "... there is no external fact
that makes ethical claims true."
Ethics is about right behavior, not about statements being true (in
accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case).
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
02 Apr 2004 05:45:53 PM |
|
|
In article <5Albc.62798$JO3.38577@attbi_s04>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Ethics isn't about proving the truth of statements about the
actual state of affairs in any particular case,
I never said it was.
Then who wrote that nonsense about ethics above, "... there is no
external fact that makes ethical claims true"?
Is Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleging that there is any conflict
between the two statements? Such conflicts can occur only in Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple's delusional world, not in any real one.
See the term, 'true' in there?
'True' applies to statements in logic, statements about the nature of
the universe and the things in it, or statements about the actual state
of affairs in any particular case.
The study of philosophy has three separate categories, truth (logic),
beauty (aesthetics), and right behavior (ethics).
And Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, fails in all of them.
You just made a category error, above, "... there is no external fact
that makes ethical claims true."
No, it is Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who is erring.
Ethics is about right behavior, not about statements being true (in
accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case).
Then it must be the case that "... there is no external fact
that makes ethical claims true."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
04 Apr 2004 01:45:57 AM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
In other words, I was discussing ethical behaviour and making the
claim that there is no external fact that makes ethical claims true.
And I am telling you that you are making what is known as a category
error. Ethics isn't about proving the truth of statements about the
actual state of affairs in any particular case,
I never said it was.
Then who wrote that nonsense about ethics above, "... there is no
external fact that makes ethical claims true"?
Complex question again.
See the term, 'true' in there?
Yes.
'True' applies to statements in logic, statements about the nature of
the universe and the things in it, or statements about the actual state
of affairs in any particular case.
Yep.
The study of philosophy has three separate categories, truth (logic),
As you can see from your description of truth above, truth is not
identical to logic. Statements about "the nature of the universe and the
things in it, or statements about the actual state of affairs in any
particular case" are not statements about logic.
beauty (aesthetics), and right behavior (ethics).
And there are many other things as well. Epistemology and metaphysics
are major sub-disiplines of philosophy that you fail to include. But
your ignorance about philosophy is not the issue.
You just made a category error, above, "... there is no external fact
that makes ethical claims true."
Ethics is about right behavior, not about statements being true (in
accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case).
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true. Ethics is *about*
right behaviour, just as you say. But ethics *consists of statements*
about right actions. What ethics *studies* is right behaviour, but what
ethics *consists in* are *statements* about right behaviour. Hence there
is no category error. It's the same thing as in sciences - physics
*studies* fundamental forces and elementary particles and such like. But
physics *consists of* statements about fundamental forces and elementary
particles, etc. Clearly, statements are not the same kind of thing as
forces and particles. There is no conflict between saying that ethics is
about right action and saying that there is no external fact that makes
ethical claims true.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
04 Apr 2004 06:18:57 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true.
Yes sir, you did. You said, "There is no external fact that makes
ethical claims true."
It's known as "category error" to try to apply a term like 'true' to the
field of ethics in which it has no applicability.
Statements in ethics are are not statements that are true (in accord
with facts), statements in ethics concern what society has decided is
right behavior. "Do not murder your fellow man" for instance. See, that
statement is about right behavior, not about any statement being true
(in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case).
Ethics is *about*
right behaviour, just as you say. But ethics *consists of statements*
about right actions.
Yes, but not statements that are true (in accord with facts), just
statements specifying what society has decided is right behavior.
"Refrain from murdering your fellow man" is a statement to which the
term, 'true' (in accord with facts) does not apply, since it is about
riht behavior, not about the nature of the universe, or the actual state
of affairs in some particular case. See the difference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
04 Apr 2004 10:17:01 PM |
|
|
In article <BJ0cc.74976$K91.163085@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
MG wrote:
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true.
Yes sir, you did. You said, "There is no external fact that makes
ethical claims true."
That is, as usual, a non sequitur, totally irrelevant to what Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, is falsely claiming.
Does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, choose to deny that ethics is
concerned with, among other things, the making of true versus false
statements.
Statements in ethics are are not statements that are true ,
But ethics is often about whether truths or falsehoods are being told.
statements in ethics concern what society has decided is
right behavior.
Which right behaviour excludes telling falsehoods, so it excludes much
of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's behavior.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
05 Apr 2004 05:16:03 AM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true.
Yes sir, you did.
No I didn't.
You said, "There is no external fact that makes
ethical claims true."
Yes.
It's known as "category error" to try to apply a term like 'true' to the
field of ethics
No it isn't.
in which it has no applicability.
It has applicability to ethics - see below.
Statements in ethics are are not statements that are true (in accord
with facts),
If they accord with the moral facts, then they are true.
statements in ethics concern what society has decided is
right behavior.
No it doesn't. That's anthroplogy, sociology, or psychology - not ethics.
"Do not murder your fellow man" for instance.
That is an *injunction* to not murder one's fellow man - it is not, in
itself, a *statement of ethics* any more than the injunction "don't walk
on the cracks in the sidewalk" is a statement of ethics. Only if it is
based upon an ethical statement is it an ethical injunction (see below).
See, that
statement is about right behavior,
No it isn't - it's an *injunciton* to not morder one's fellow man, pure
and simple. A statement about right behaviour would be:
"It is morally wrong to murder one's fellow man".
If your example is a moral injunction then it is because it follows from
a moral statement - and that is precisely how we would normally contrue
that injunction:
"Do not murder your fellow man, *because* it is morally wrong to murder
one's fellow man"
This shows that ethical statements (evaluable as true/false) are prior
to ethical injunctions.
not about any statement being true
(in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case).
Ethics is *about* right behaviour, just as you say. But ethics
*consists of statements* about right actions.
Yes, but not statements that are true (in accord with facts), just
statements specifying what society has decided is right behavior.
No. See above.
"Refrain from murdering your fellow man" is a statement to which the
term, 'true' (in accord with facts) does not apply,
I agree completely. Injunctions are not evaluable in terms of truth or
falsity.
since it is about
riht behavior,
Not unless it is based upon an ethical statement such as "murdering your
fellow man is morally wrong". It is ethical statements that (ultimately)
comprises ethical theory.
not about the nature of the universe, or the actual state
of affairs in some particular case. See the difference?
I do see the difference between injunctions and ethical statements - but
do you?
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
05 Apr 2004 12:29:40 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true.
Yes sir, you did.
No I didn't.
Yes sir, you did.
You said, "There is no external fact that makes ethical claims true."
Yes.
Then you are talking about statements in ethics being true. See that
term, 'true' there on the end of what you said?
That is a category error on your part.
Ethics is all about right behavior, not truth.
Statements being true (in accord with facts) is the concern of logic
(study of the principles of valid argument). Ever heard of it? (It's
usually philosophy 101, or thereabouts. Check your local university
catalog.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
05 Apr 2004 05:08:38 PM |
|
|
In article <8Igcc.74026$gA5.895403@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true.
Yes sir, you did.
No I didn't.
Yes sir, you did.
You said, "There is no external fact that makes ethical claims true."
Yes.
Then you are talking about statements in ethics being true. See that
term, 'true' there on the end of what you said?
That is a category error on your part.
Ethics is all about right behavior, not truth.
Statements being true (in accord with facts) is the concern of logic
(study of the principles of valid argument). Ever heard of it? (It's
usually philosophy 101, or thereabouts. Check your local university
catalog.)
One does wish that on the rare occasions that Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, gets something right, he would remember it.
In another post on this same day, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has
taken exactly the opposite side, arguing for the truth or falsehood of
ethical judgements.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: ethics |
06 Apr 2004 04:50:49 PM |
|
|
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
Skepticus wrote:
MG wrote:
I never said ethics is *about* statements being true.
Yes sir, you did.
No I didn't.
Yes sir, you did.
No, I didn't.
You said, "There is no external fact that makes ethical claims true."
Yes.
Then you are talking about statements in ethics being true.
Yes, I am. What I did not say was that ethical claims are *about*
statements being true.
See the snipped sections.
See that
term, 'true' there on the end of what you said?
Yep. See the word "about" in your original accusation? Well, I never
said ethics was about anything except "right behaviour".
See the sections you snipped withuot acknowledgement for explanation of
the difference between "consists in" and "about".
That is a category error on your part.
Nope. See snipped sections.
Ethics is all about right behavior, not truth.
Absolutely. Ethics (a body of claims that are truth evaluable) consists
of statements that are all about right behaviour. Ethics is not *about*
truth. See if you can follow the parallel:
Forces, elementary particles, etc., are not truth-evaluable.
Right behaviour is not truth-evaluable.
Physics consists of *claims about* forces, elementary particles, etc.
Ethics consists of *claims about* right behaviour.
Physics does not *consist of* forces, elementary particles, etc.
Ethics does not *consist of* right behaiour.
Rather, physics *studies* (is *about*) forces, elementary particles, etc.
Rather, ethics *studies* (is *about*) right behaviour.
Physics is not *about* truth.
Ethics is not *about* truth.
What you fail to keep distinct is the *subject matter* of a discipline
(what a discipline is *about*) from what the study of that subject
matter (i.e., the discipline) *consists of* (a body of truth-evaluable
claims). Ethics, like physics, is a body of truth-evaluable claims.
Ethics, like physics, is not about truth, and the subject matter of
ethics, like that of physics, is not truth-evaluable.
MG
Statements being true (in accord with facts) is the concern of logic
(study of the principles of valid argument). Ever heard of it? (It's
usually philosophy 101, or thereabouts. Check your local university
catalog.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
