In that link, I substantiate my case that, from the perspective of the person holding them, ultimate ends are neither correct nor incorrect. In the quotation that I sent you from “Theory and History”, he explains the two senses of the term, that you keep conflating. Whether you hold a certain ultimate end is either correct or incorrect. For example, you might hold ultimate end A and not B. But, from your point of view, you holding A instead of B is neither correct nor incorrect, it is just given. The latter is what I meant.
I never keep conflating anything, hog-wash…lol
I never even used the word “ultimate end”. So I don’t know what you are asking.
The Buck Stops Here. He was a terrible president in regards but that’s a really good saying.
When I said “preferences not subject to proof or disproof” and “personal preferences, not subject to proof or disproof”, I was talking about “ultimate ends”.
My prefences are facts. They are proved or disproved. Are you questioning my existence again?
What you are saying isn’t making any sense.
Do you agree with what I wrote in the post to which I linked you?
What if I don’t agree with your preferences? Moreover, what if I don’t care about them? Just asking.
bloom,
What if I don’t care if you don’t care whether I exist or not? Just asking.
I. Ryan,
I suggest reading through my response to that post. I’m not going to re-respond to the whole thing. It was long.
This is exactly the problem. Neither one of our values carries any more weight than the other.
Do you agree with these:
Yet they both still exist. (Not a disagreement.)
Where you see a problem, I see a solution.
Exactly. Case closed end thread. lol, I’m just kidding.
Exactly.
What are " " (quotation marks) supposed to do? This sentence only contradicts itself.
If Lilburne only made as much sense as you do at times bloom. I agree with what you said. But I don’t know if this has anything to do with the totality of the thread.
Why did you not respond to the other quotation? My ultimate ends, that is, my judgements of value, do not “carr[y] any more weight than [yours]”; yet both mine and yours exist.
I didn’t know they were necessarily separate. I thought they were a package deal.
yes, so? Why does Lilburne attack my values then? I guess he doesn’t realize this yet. That’s another flaw in his theory to add to the pile.
You’re looking for objective weight in subjective values, right? But if human action reveals anything, it’s that different people value different things for different reasons. None of their values are “right” or “wrong” in the objective sense. Even if we all agree that a certain value is “right” that doesn’t mean it objectively is.
I personally think the term " natural law" should be changed to “commonly recurring human values.” Then the terminology would be less misleading. Man has no laws other than that he acts. How he chooses to act depends on his values which are purely subjective. It may seem that a great many people tend to share the same values but, in fact, many values are not shared. That’s where man’s law comes in. Agree or disagree?
EDIT: Also, I don’t think Lilburne is attacking your values. I think he’s attacking your idea that somehow your values can have some kind of special weight over anyone else’s.
Finally.
He never did that, bro’.