/lit/ - Literature

>>3921983

Kant.

/thread

>>3922003
care to expand? i was hoping for more discussion and less namedropping

if i say that torture is wrong, I'm right regardless of whether i'm identifying a property in the external world or expressing an attitude (or merely making a disapproving noise). Likewise with abortion, the iraq war etc (assuming these things are wrong)

>>3922027

O.k., dude, I've done this a thousand of times, but here we go again.

Moral particularism (which is what you believe in according to the OP) is irrational. First, because thinking rationally needs consistent thought and ethically speaking feature = reason in every occurrence, so particularism denies the rationality of moral thought. Second, moral choices require choosing similar paths in similar circumstances, and for particularism choosing morally is as relevant as choosing between butterscotch and peppermint. And, third, moral particularists, by definition, are not capable of speak of our ability to learn from moral experience.

So, overall, be careful what you say or believe, because it may cripple you completely from talking about the subject. As soon as you claim to be a moral particularist and you speak of right and wrong, you are falling into a big black bag full of dicks.

>>3922092
op wasn't committing himself to moral particularism as far as i can see

>>3922092
I hope this is copy pasta, because if not you spent a long time typing a non sequitur

>>3921983
Yeah I took a course on ethics in college and this is the problem that kept cropping up for me and which kept me from really engaging with a lot of the material in the class. Feel like this is a big sticking point in the divide between so-called 'continental' and 'analytic' schools - 'continental ethics', to speak generally, are more willing to deal with the meta-ethical grounding and that's a big part of the reason I find someone like Nietzsche relatable and a lot of the 'analytic' readings assigned in my Anglo college course less so.

>>3922092

Are you saying there are "right" and "wrong"?

>>3921983

Most people are aloof to the advantage of being culturally/ environmentally aware. They contribute very little to the specificity of the arguments presented in certain circles, and so their discussions are moot.

Find online circles, attend classes of your interest (at university/ college), read books of your particular niche, etc.

An avid chess player doesn't give a shit about how the millions of other chess players who suck shit at it. Same thing with a philosophical awareness.

seriously, what argument on ethics doesn't end up touching on meta-ethics these days? Literally every argument does. Faggots newsbroadcasters get into "meta-ethics". If anything it's too common. I'd prefer to go back to the days when people still had a clear idea what morals and right and wrong are instead of this edgy cultural relativism shit

>>3922170
>An avid chess player doesn't give a shit about how the millions of other chess players who suck shit at it. Same thing with a philosophical awareness.

yeah, if you treat philosophy as a competitive game like chess, you condescending prick

first me must discuss what 'discussion' and 'consensus' even are. what is 'being'?

>>3922179
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>3922178

Everything's an argument ya nig nog. From one's refuting of another's reality to another, ideas are tinkered with and firmed in an inductive manner. Just one form of generating ideas, silly.

>>3922188

*formed

>>3922188
yeah, it's hard for me to know what you're talking about when even you don't know what you're talking about

>>3922179
an impossible question as words themselves have no meaning.

I think you can still have a casual ethical discussion if everyone lays out what the think is right and wrong. If someone says shit like "oh well there is no such thing as morality so i don't know" fuck them off. You don't need to analyse meta ethics to have an opinion

>>3922191

>>3922197
but then people are basing their arguments on radically different premises. How is that a productive foundation for discussion?