and other times, MD&D creeps me out...

[_Darth J]

To mfbuowski:

I suggest you read Mein Kampf and then we will have something to talk about. Hitler doesn't represent my opinions, but I think you will find the conclusions he reaches highly relevant to this discussion.

I will be glad to discuss precisely where I think he goes wrong if you seem to actually understand his position.

[_MrStakhanovite]

To all:

I suggest all here read some Richard Joyce and then we will have something to talk about. He doesn't represent my opinions, but I think you will find the conclusions he reaches highly relevant to this discussion.

I will be glad to discuss precisely where I think he goes wrong if anyone seems to actually understand his position.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Can I get a page number as to where Joyce goes wrong, what is the nature of the error, and how exactly do you fix it?

[_moksha]

Speaking of Eugenics, wonder how many generations of selective breeding and genetic drift between true believers are needed to produce a pure true knower genotype?

[_MCB]

Speaking of Eugenics, wonder how many generations of selective breeding between true believers are needed to produce a pure true knower genotype?

For such a genotype to be successful within Mormonism, it would have to be very close to schizophrenia, but not quite there. Not easy.

[_mfbukowski]

PAGE NUMBER?

Are you SERIOUS?

Notice my statement was conditional. He has published at least two books and a number of articles and you want to know which page number???

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/staff/richard ... apers.html

All you are interested in is attacking any position anyone from the other board posts- it is easy to attack when you have no stated positions yourself, with which you have to demonstrate the consistency of your own position. You can object to virtually anything on any basis when you have no position to defend yourself, and then attack someone else on any other random basis the next time, if that position is consistent with your previous attack or not.

Anyone can attack any statement on any grounds- putting forth a definite opinion and then defending it to all comers is totally different. You carefully never put yourself in that position and I am tired of defending ad infinitum- it is a total waste of my time.

I am not attacking your stated moral realism- or whatever it is- because as an anti-realist we are so far apart that we live in different universes.

In general where I think Joyce goes wrong is in his notion of the lack of justifiability of moral propositions when he ultimate endorses a fictionalist position. In my opinion, fictionalism, which is similar to instrumentalism, can be seen as its own justification, as the Pragmatists do.

But I am really not interested in conversing with you any longer, since you have demonstrated that reasonable conversation is not what you are interested in.

My previous post about Joyce was mostly directed to EA if he wants to respond.

[_MrStakhanovite]

PAGE NUMBER?

Yes.

Are you SERIOUS?

Yes.

Notice my statement was conditional. He has published at least two books and a number of articles and you want to know which page number???

Yes.

All you are interested in is attacking any position anyone from the other board posts

No.

it is easy to attack when you have no stated positions yourself, with which you have to demonstrate the consistency of your own position.

This is the second thread we’ve participated in where I’ve explicated non-natural moral realism.

You can object to virtually anything on any basis when you have no position to defend yourself, and then attack someone else on any other random basis the next time, if that position is consistent with your previous attack or not.

Insisting that an objective morality exists as an abstract entity is a minority and controversial view in Meta-ethics.

I am not attacking your stated moral realism- or whatever it is- because as an anti-realist we are so far apart that we live in different universes.

And yet, moral realism is discussed by non-realists all the time.

But I am really not interested in conversing with you any longer, since you have demonstrated that reasonable conversation is not what you are interested in.

Oh I’m pretty reasonable, I even gave you a specific position I hold and was ready to talk about it. You demurred.

My previous post about Joyce was mostly directed to EA if he wants to respond.

Really?

To all:

I suggest all here read some Richard Joyce and then we will have something to talk about. He doesn't represent my opinions, but I think you will find the conclusions he reaches highly relevant to this discussion.

I will be glad to discuss precisely where I think he goes wrong if anyone seems to actually understand his position.

[_EAllusion]

I think I've read one Joyce essay and I'd have to scan it again to be reminded about it. He's sympathetic to error theory, right? I can discuss Mackie more competantly because I've read the bulk of his work on the subject as well as some criticism. I'm a moral naturalist ala Micheal Smith.

[_mfbukowski]

I think I've read one Joyce essay and I'd have to scan it again to be reminded about it. He's sympathetic to error theory, right? I can discuss Mackie more competantly because I've read the bulk of his work on the subject as well as some criticism. I'm a moral naturalist ala Micheal Smith.

Yep- both are error theorists and Joyce thinks that moral propositions cannot be justified, but Mackie thinks they are downright "false".

As a pragmatist, I think they can be justified pragmatically, or even termed "true" although certainly in a pragmatic sense.

I linked to a bunch of articles on his own website in another post above, and I'd like to discuss The Myth of Morality especially because I think his idea of moral fictionalism is very close to Pragmatism and has a lot of relevance to William James' Varieties. Combine that with the notion that morality has evolved- and you can see why all those issues would interest me.

I am super duper busy right now though, and I might be slow in responding- but if it interests you and you feel like picking out an article or two that would be cool too. It's up to you.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The ... JfsQwd-HAC

Front Cover
Richard Joyce
0 Reviews
Cambridge University Press, 2001 - Philosophy - 249 pages
"In The Myth of Morality, Richard Joyce argues that moral discourse is hopelessly flawed. At the heart of ordinary moral judgments is a notion of moral inescapability, or practical authority, which, upon investigation, cannot be reasonably defended. Joyce argues that natural selection is to blame, in that it has provided us with a tendency to invest the world with values that it does not contain, and demands that it does not make. Should we therefore do away with morality, as we did away with other faulty notions such as witches? Possibly not. We may be able to carry on with morality as a useful fiction - allowing it to have a regulative influence on our lives and decisions, perhaps even playing a central role - while not committing ourselves to believing or asserting falsehoods, and thus not being subject to accusations of error."--BOOK JACKET.