Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ppw

Regulars
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ppw last won the day on September 25 2012

ppw had the most liked content!

About ppw

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1904 profile views
  1. This is great, thanks! This actually supports my definition. Go figure.
  2. That's not an understanding of the naturalistic fallacy as put forth by Moore, who argues that the concept of the good is irreducible. What you quoted was my re-definition. (I had hoped to make that clear.) Otherwise I have to throw them all out, because none of them are valid. They just represent a battle between two kinds of intrinsicism; "ethical intuitionism" and "ethical naturalism".
  3. I was trying to reach an objective definition of this batch of fallacies, and I'm finding it very difficult because of all the rationalism involved in the sources. I was hoping someone else already had it figured out. The only way to make these fallacies 'work', in my conclusion, is to take nature as existence apart from man as the definition, and then observe the fact-value distinction with that in mind: Moral statements cannot be derived from facts in nature. To do so is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Nature cannot be morally evaluated (based on Pinker's examples) and mor
  4. What I quoted was the mistaken description of the is-ought fallacy, still visible in my original post, that you fixed post festum.
  5. Thanks, Greg. I don't think even Wikipedia knows what the is-ought problem is. "Statements about what is on the basis of statements about what ought to be." It's reversed!
  6. I mean, are you guys just going to keep switching contexts, or what?
  7. And what view of objectvity do you think made possible that idea?
  8. How could they not? Their entire conception of objectivity is Kantian:
  9. P) A clock is a device used to measure, keep, and indicate time. C) A clock ought to keep the time.
  10. Can someone help me understand this nonsense?
  11. Here's how I see it now, a year later. We - and by "we" I mean people concerned with ideas - are different "beasts" than most people. We care about what we say and we scrutinize what we listen to, sometimes heavily (I'm not going to say 'too much', because I don't think there's such a thing as "overthinking".) This is different from the policies most other people employ, one common of which is "say something so you don't appear unsociable", so what you get is ... what's that word .... bromides. Most people you deal with in your everyday life don't have integrated (or largely integrated) mi
  12. That just makes the use of the term 'libertarianism' worse, not better. It renders it meaningless, because it identifies nothing essential in particular.
×
×
  • Create New...