>he's a moral relativist
>he thinks you can derive an ought from an is
>He thinks morality should be a fixed idea.
Wearing the color green is evil
It's wrong because I say so
>>461864
>he's not a moral relativist
>>461864
Wouldn't be the first time I had women laughing at me.
Won't be the last.
>>461864
Is this bait?
>>461864
poor bait
Can we have a laughing historical figures thread?
I don't think you can have an in depth understanding of history without being one
>>464767
>>461864
I'd say nothing is wrong or right anon and that it is impossible to prove that anything is good, but cleaning your blood off my longsword would certainly be right.
>>461933
it's not evil
it's just not as good as not doing it
>he's not a moral naturalist
Railtonbois
>morality
>>461864
id be a moral determinist
I think we're doomed obeying laws from the past, which we can only change in the present but from whom we will only profit in the future.
>>461869
Of course you can. A butterknife is made for butter, therefore you ought to use it for butter and not to cut meat.
>>466111
Whats this from?
>>461864
>He doesn't understand that moral relativism is a form of moral realism
>He can't distinguish between moral relativism and moral nihilism
>Being this deep in epistemic closure
>>467472
>he conflates descriptive utility based on common usage with normative statements and doesn't explain the bridge between them
Wew lad. When someone says "You should use a steak knife for that" they mean "A steak knife would be better than a butter knife at achieving your current goal of cutting steak". Humans do not have universal goals, however, so the idea of any universal morality deriving from this is bunk, and you still haven't explained your supposed bridge of how pragmatic recommendations become normative statements.
>>467472
That doesn't mean that most people use butter knives to cut their steak.
>>467472
"you ought to use a butter knife for that" isn't a moral statement you inbred, it's a functional one.
