Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6416603" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>So far that seems fairly uncontroversial. Your model here seems to ignore a fair amount of nuance that one would expect to be present, but insofar as setting up a basic framework for the discussion, it suffices.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's here that we come to a problem, since all three of these possibilities presume that there must be a "true alternative" to begin with; I say this is problematic because simply labeling an alternative as being "true" requires that we accept the inherent premise as to what "truth" is - namely, that truth or falsehood is a question of objective existence (hence why we never talk about opinions as being true or false, unlike (what we accept to be) physical facts). Simply having multiple alternatives available, insofar as personal beliefs that do not deal with (what we accept to be) facts does not necessarily require that only one of them be the "true" alternative.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, having made these assertions, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate why they are so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As demonstrated above, I believe that the possibilities you've laid out are flawed, since they still confine themselves to a limited true/false dichotomy that doesn't necessarily apply where beliefs such as personal opinions are concerned. If you were to hold that morality is subjective, then someone else talking about a "true alternative" is going to be an inherently invalid concept, because the nature of a subjective belief is that its subjectivity means that questions of whether it is true or not are necessarily inapplicable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suspect that we'll need to agree to disagree here, since a sample size of 1 is not good evidence of any sort of sampling, even leaving aside the basic understanding that claiming to speak on the behalf of others is an action that is understood to require verification (as a generality).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a terribly weak argument, far weaker than the one of mine that you quoted - the issue with the number of fleas on a cat is not subjective; it is unknown. That is not the same thing. We can ascertain a methodology by which we could determine the number of fleas on the cat (e.g. you count them), even if we can't put that method into practice (e.g. the cat, and the fleas, are dead) - both parties will agree that such a methodology would be an objective method of determination. No such objective method of determination can be reached insofar as the example I posted, since we recognize the lack of any objective moral criteria to determine whether X is good (as Person A said) or bad (as Person B said).</p><p></p><p>Likewise, you don't seem to understand what begging the question means. It's an instance of including conclusion you're seeking in the premise that you're positing. Leaving aside that this is exactly what your A-B-C framework, posted above, does (you'll remember that it talks about a "true" alternative to the question of whether morality is objective or subjective), that's not what's going on with the example I posted. Simply put, noting the lack of any objective moral criteria does not beg the question against those who believe there are, because that necessarily points out that this is still a <strong>belief</strong> on their part. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If they're positing the existence of an objective moral criteria, then I presume that they have evidence to support that positive assertion. So far, I've yet to find any that stand up to scrutiny insofar as being demonstrably true (which is to say, that they can be shown to be objective), rather than being a state of belief, which is a state of subjectivity. One presumes that reasons that might tell in favor of an objective moral truth would demonstrate an objective existence regardless of belief.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, it's problematic to hold forth that you're speaking for most people.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Likewise, I've said that burdens of proof are highly relevant when you're claiming that your metaphysics are objectively true. Claiming that there's some sort of statute of limitations on that is patently absurd.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 6416603, member: 8461"] So far that seems fairly uncontroversial. Your model here seems to ignore a fair amount of nuance that one would expect to be present, but insofar as setting up a basic framework for the discussion, it suffices. It's here that we come to a problem, since all three of these possibilities presume that there must be a "true alternative" to begin with; I say this is problematic because simply labeling an alternative as being "true" requires that we accept the inherent premise as to what "truth" is - namely, that truth or falsehood is a question of objective existence (hence why we never talk about opinions as being true or false, unlike (what we accept to be) physical facts). Simply having multiple alternatives available, insofar as personal beliefs that do not deal with (what we accept to be) facts does not necessarily require that only one of them be the "true" alternative. Now, having made these assertions, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate why they are so. As demonstrated above, I believe that the possibilities you've laid out are flawed, since they still confine themselves to a limited true/false dichotomy that doesn't necessarily apply where beliefs such as personal opinions are concerned. If you were to hold that morality is subjective, then someone else talking about a "true alternative" is going to be an inherently invalid concept, because the nature of a subjective belief is that its subjectivity means that questions of whether it is true or not are necessarily inapplicable. I suspect that we'll need to agree to disagree here, since a sample size of 1 is not good evidence of any sort of sampling, even leaving aside the basic understanding that claiming to speak on the behalf of others is an action that is understood to require verification (as a generality). This is a terribly weak argument, far weaker than the one of mine that you quoted - the issue with the number of fleas on a cat is not subjective; it is unknown. That is not the same thing. We can ascertain a methodology by which we could determine the number of fleas on the cat (e.g. you count them), even if we can't put that method into practice (e.g. the cat, and the fleas, are dead) - both parties will agree that such a methodology would be an objective method of determination. No such objective method of determination can be reached insofar as the example I posted, since we recognize the lack of any objective moral criteria to determine whether X is good (as Person A said) or bad (as Person B said). Likewise, you don't seem to understand what begging the question means. It's an instance of including conclusion you're seeking in the premise that you're positing. Leaving aside that this is exactly what your A-B-C framework, posted above, does (you'll remember that it talks about a "true" alternative to the question of whether morality is objective or subjective), that's not what's going on with the example I posted. Simply put, noting the lack of any objective moral criteria does not beg the question against those who believe there are, because that necessarily points out that this is still a [b]belief[/b] on their part. If they're positing the existence of an objective moral criteria, then I presume that they have evidence to support that positive assertion. So far, I've yet to find any that stand up to scrutiny insofar as being demonstrably true (which is to say, that they can be shown to be objective), rather than being a state of belief, which is a state of subjectivity. One presumes that reasons that might tell in favor of an objective moral truth would demonstrate an objective existence regardless of belief. Again, it's problematic to hold forth that you're speaking for most people. Likewise, I've said that burdens of proof are highly relevant when you're claiming that your metaphysics are objectively true. Claiming that there's some sort of statute of limitations on that is patently absurd. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top