i'm curious because, by this point, i've read the meta ethics wiki article.
but i've already called you an egoist who's looking to be proven right, and thus you will be, because you construct everything to disallow new information that would require shifting your perspective.
i think it's in bad faith. and it is linked with the sentiment that lbj expressed of you being selfish.
Itās intellectually poor because it supposes that for any such system to exist it must make the individual hbotz act morally
The system must not only prescribe what is and isnāt moral, but it must also compel people (especially you) to be moral
yes. i agree. morality is not robust to sociopaths because they dont care. im not a sociopath.
but you can out the sociopaths in jail if they do bad things. i think laws can be robust to sociopaths, and thats what counts.
Moral nihilism doesn't say that ethical systems don't exist or don't cause people to act in certain ways. It's concerned with evaluating whether any system is actually moral and concludes, in the version I ascribe to, that no moral claim can have a truth-value. The language of ethics can be useful still, but ethical claims are never true (and, in that branch, never false as well)
laws do not need to determine what is moral imo. the laws just need to be clear and have the desired effect. you cannot trust anyone to be moral just because you described a morality to them.
why not?
also it is helpful for people to have āfollow the law for its own sakeā as a moral directive. i think many of them do. but you cant rely on that.
Right Iām trying to think of ways to get a moral nihilist to accept that there is a level to which a moral fact can get to that gives it some kind of true/false value
why not?
Hey idiot we are talking about ethics not laws
Get on topic
If you want to claim that ethics = laws then claim it otherwise focus up
because telling people about morality is unlikely to change their minds. there is some success rate but it is not very high. i also do not think it is useful to make having the wrong morality immoral, as long as you do not actually do bad things, through fear of punishment or otherwise.
why can you not "tell people" about morality?
ok sorry i wanted to talk about laws if you dont want to talk about laws go ahead bud
i dont think you can rely on people to follow ethical principles without fear of punishment either though.
what is a "wrong morality"? how can a morality be wrong and immoral at the same time?
(Also you can still tell that hbotz hasnāt looked up any terms he wasnāt familiar with because this new discussion of laws has been talked about previously)
you certainly can. they are just unlikely to be convinced.
convinced of what?
thus, the system should not rely on convincing people to change their morality.