Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
And here is where I disagree with you. "Truth" is not a property of a sentence. It is a measure of the alignment between a sentence and the reality it purports to represent. A sentence is "true" if it aligns with the objective reality it represents, and untrue if it does not. I agree that language is only one way in which human communicate, which is why I think you err to conflate language and communication. I can deceive you without using language.
As for "communicate via the truth," that is a very odd sentence. I communicate via language. I communicate via gestures. I communicate via facial expressions and so-called "body language." I don't communicate via truth." What I communicate, by any of those means, is either true or untrue, depending on its alignment with reality.
No. The statement "good in itself" is meaningless, IMO. "Good" is an assessment made by an assessor using a selected metric. Without that assessor and the defined metric, the notion of "good" does not exist.
Again, you seem to contradict yourself within the same paragraph. If a thing is good-in-itself, then how can a "context" change that goodness? The thing's goodness is, according to you, self-contained. It should be immune to "context." Yet you acknowledge that it is not always a good thing in the next sentence. Do you not see the problem here...?
We see moral frameworks emerge in high-level sentience. We also see advanced language and communication emerge in high-level sentience. That correlation does not equate to any form of causation. If you think so, you have yet to make that case.
So which part lacks evidence. Does not morality deal with human action and categorize ought versus ought not? Does not legality also deal with human action and categorize ought versus ought not? Are legal systems not subjective to the society/group/culture that derive them? Do you know of anyone who suggests that the absence of an "objectively true" legal framework renders legal frameworks useless because there is no way to resolve discrepancies? You like to toss out "question begging," but I see nothing in that statement that assumes its own conclusion.
So how do legal codes differ from moral ones in a way that you consider "crucial" and requiring an explanation?
[
Comment