What do you mean by truth-apt? It sounds like you are trying to dodge the contradiction through unscrupulous obfuscation. If you cannot know, actually know what the difference is between good and bad or know what good or bad is, if you know the latter then you can obviously know the former, then how can you have a valid opinion of whether something is good or bad? You would be using worlds in which you have no concrete definition for, you would be speaking jibberish. Yet you made a coherent sentence in thinking that ‘taxes are bad because they are stealing.’ So either you had a moment of uncontrollable rational thought concerning a true ethical value statement, or you are being dishonest with yourself.
Ethical statements are not propositions and therefore cannot be expressed as true or false, or truth-apt.
And where exactly is the conflict? You cannot have a valid opinion as to whether something is good or bad. Just as you cannot have a valid opinion as to whether something is humourous or humourless. These are all subjective. A valid opinion must be backed by evidence, which is of course, a demonstration of truth.
Quote???
Still it doesn’t matter, as such a statement isn’t necessarily any endorsement of natural law or objective ethics. Its simply a statement of my (subjective) beliefs. When reading, you falsely assumed that the ethical statement made was premised as true. It wasn’t. Its a mere expression of opinion. Interpreted better as:
“(I think that) taxes are ‘bad’ because they are stealing (which I think is ‘bad’).”
Its really no different than my saying “The Simpsons is funny” the average person doesn’t interpret that as meaning a “true humour statement” they understand that its just an statement of preference.
I thought that the skeptics/amoralists/postivists/broken records have been ridiculed enough in other threads, but still they keep posting their nonsense ? How boring.
So stealing is bad is not a statement that can be either proven true or false?
Where is the conflict in the premise that you have no idea what good or bad is yet say something is good or bad?
You replied to my question of ‘Taxes are bad’ with ‘I think so’
But you say that ethical statements cannot be true or false. Are you saying that what is truth to you is not an endorsement of truth or falsity concerning ethical propositions? If so why not?
Because morality doesn’t deal with humor. It deals with right and wrong.
Boring? I’m still waiting for a proof of “natural boredom.” Maybe Spooner wrote one…
Didn’t you check the thread(s) where your laughable nonsense was, well, already laughed at ?
Precisely.
You can have an opinion on what constitutes “good” and “bad” but nothing more. There isn’t an objective good or bad just as there isn’t an objective funny or un-funny. Its nothing more than an opinion.
Yes, I think taxes are wrong. Its only my opinion, it isn’t an objective fact.
I’m saying it isn’t truth to me nor is it truth to anybody. Such statements simply aen’t applicable to truth at all. Instead, what I’m saying is that is my opinion of taxes. Not everything is applicable to truth, including humour, taste, ethics, and morals.
[:^)]
They are all opinions. Morality is to humour as “right” is to “funny.”
Nope, could care less. Were you the one laughing in them? Because, if so, that doesn’t say all that much.
Well, I suppose it’s typical of ‘philosophers’ like to you to reinvent the square wheel…go ahead then.
You’ll be waiting a long time.
Philosophy is lame. Big waste of time. Study economics (and engineering).
And the fact that people “just choose” to vote in Obama shows how worthwhile and valuable Obama is.
I guess this is a must read.
Note to self : I do make the mistake of thinking that (some) people are more clever than they really are.
Wouldn’t your positivistic ramblings qualify as (admittedly bad) philosophy ? Maybe you are conceding how lame you are ?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain how its related to natural law?
Juan, is your note to self for me, or did you mistakenly write what you were thinking?
And I really don’t know if my “positivistic ramblings” qualify as philosophy, but they probably do, but everything could be qualified as philosophy by somebody. However, I find it much better to be on the subjectivist side of the fence than the objectivist one, as I don’t have that damned burden of proof on my shoulders. And yes, this is very lame, but if you could keep more of your notes to yourself, it would make it much more bearable.
Jeffery Tucker writes:
“What’s at work here is an unraveling of the entire basis for any form of intellectual discussion. If we can’t agree on universal rules of establishing the veracity of truth claims, all discussion is reduced to a series of demands followed by ad hominem attacks on anyone who resists those demands. Mises himself understood that if we are to avoid this fate, there had to be some understanding and agreement on the rules of logic. George Koether reports that Mises told his seminar students that the first book on economics that they should read is a book on logic by Morris Cohen, a book which is in fact one of the last complete texts on logic to be published for universal use in the college classroom.” (my bold and underline)
I’ll stick to not only Tucker, and Mises who in the thread of the Austrian school of Economics profess the significance of learning about logic. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t the only one that said start with math, logic, and then get into other subjects. If you didn’t know, Tucker does a lot of great work here and writes some excellent Mises Daily posts.
Also here’s a great lecture by Gene Calloun that I watched about a month ago in which I found at Bob Murphy’s blog. Excellent discussion on logic.
have fun.
Yes, I know that - it’s the easy way out.
You and the rest of the ‘subjectivists’ usually don’t know what you are talking about, but you fancy you keep the intellectual high ground by pretending you can doubt any assertion 'cause “everything is subjective” and you are “open minded” blah blah.
Frankly, it seems to me that if some (philosophical) position is to be called LAME, then that position is subjectivism…
Yes, I’m the one being called a logical positivist here. And Mises was well aware of the impossibility of objective “natural rights.” I’m the one saying that objective ethics aren’t necessary. Logic, economics law, is more than enough.
And I mostly agree with Gene and am certainly not a materialist. But that doesn’t hamper the case for ethical subjectivism any more than it hampers the case for “humour subjectivism” (or what have you).
Do you, wilderness, believe in objective humour?
You’d make an excellent religious fanatic. “Sure, its easy not to believe in Jesus, since he didn’t exist. But you’d be taking the easy way ouy.” “Sure, its easy not to believe the Bible is the word of God when its full of contradictions. But thats taking the easy way out.” Etc…
In the world of ethics subjectivism is just the intelligent way out.
Well, don’t lump me in that group. I don’t think everything is subjective. I do for ethics though. Its really simple for you to shut me up though, prove that it’s objective. (Or admit you believe it on unproven grounds)
Thats a fair assessment. But, you obviously agree that some things are subjective, such as whats “lame.” You’ll come around.
They should be more than enough. [Y] Being religious about ethics is not progress.