Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
That is a lot of arguing as to why basically every word I have asked you to define is totally irrelevant and you don't have to learn what that word means.
I had to learn what they meant (the terms I didn't already know) to be able to decide if they were relevant. I'm now much more clear on what descriptive and normative mean so that's been useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Even when in the very defence you make basic errors like confusing ethics and meta ethics. remember, you confidently told me you were not proposing a meta ethical theory....when I have informed you that you are indeed doing this you have now asked why it is irrelevant. And I don't care about moral nihilism, your own statements have been meta ethical claims!
? I'm not sure where I confused ethics with metaethics, perhaps you could quote that? I've only used the word 'ethics' once (
in this post) and that was in a definition that I quoted for you to confirm that I was understanding 'descriptive claim' correctly. But I've explained why I thought the term wasn't relevant, accepted that I might be wrong anyway, and asked you where we go from there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Your basic exposition consisted of a mixture of descriptive and metaethical claims. The first step is to recognize that this is going on, that you are jumping between the two and that the descriptive claims don't get you to the metaethical ones. Considering whether, say, some types of subjective morality might be consistent with your descriptive claims would be useful, but you have insisted this is irrelevant despite showing you no indication you know what any of these words means.
I've made clear indications, including quoting definitions, that I understand what they mean. You've yet to explain why we still need to be using these terms. For example, I don't understand how ideas about subjective morality could be at all useful in a discussion about whether or nor morals are actually real. Can you give me an example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
And ffs, you shouldn't say your claims are descriptive because they are "not normative" and that is the best you can do, they are descriptive because they DESCRIBE a feature of the universe!
I'm trying to accommodate your insistence that we label my 'what if' one or the other. I've done that, even though it seems particularly not useful other than to rule out that it's a Normative idea, now where does that take us?