Originally posted by seer
View Post
By the way, moral realism is not an ethical system. It's a meta-ethical position. It's stunning that you still don't recognize the difference, since I spent at least 5 posts on another thread explaining to you that meta-ethics is not same thing as normative ethics. Apparently, you either weren't paying attention, or deceptively pretending that this wasn't explained to you.
And it has zero effect on discovering what is actually right or wrong.
seer, this has been explained to you no less than 5 times. For example:
Originally posted by Jichard
View Post
And yet here you are, pretending that moral realism needs to answer questions of normative ethics.
Why are you so wilfully dishonest that you repeat the same mistakes over and over, while pretending thye hve not been addressed?
Originally posted by seer
Fallacy of appeal to consequence. Might as well say that Cell Theory is false and useless, since it doesn't have a positive effect on behavior. That would be silly, of course, since the point of Cell Theory is not to change behavior. It's to answer biological questions. Similarly, the point of moral realism isn't to change behavior. It's to answer meta-ethical questions. You keep evading this point.
Comment