I was just trying to distinguish the idea of good and evil from good and evil. People constantly confused the idea with what it is the idea of.

You wrote this in another thread.

Do you, then, think good or evil have properties? If they do, then good and evil exist. And if they exist, and I use the word "wrong" to refer to something evil, and the word "right" to refer to something good, what does this tell us? I go back to my original questioning...

Evil (and good) are , themselves, properties. Are there such properties? Obviously. What kind of properties they are is a difficult, philosophical, issue. I suppose that Stevenson thinks that good and evil are "projective" properties, attitudes projected on external objects. Perhaps like saying that a piece of music is sad or angry.

What is the faculty that perceives the properties evil and good? And why is this different than my perception of what is wrong in "Rape is wrong"? Here, wrong is a property of rape.

You mean how do I know that I have a negative attitude or positive attitude toward rape, and want you to have one as well? That is what Stevenson would answer.

"Want you to have one as well", seems to imply persuasion. It seems to imply that these sorts of properties are opinion, preference even. It is as if I am trying to convince you that chocolate is the best flavor of icecream.

"Want you to have one as well", seems to imply persuasion. It seems to imply that these sorts of properties are opinion, preference even. It is as if I am trying to convince you that chocolate is the best flavor of icecream.

Isn't it possible for there to be a best flavor of ice cream? What if I were to try and convince you that cold water on a hot day is better than hot water? Or that ice cream tastes better than tar? Our taste in food has a basis in biology, as does our sense of morality. Arguing whether ice cream tastes better than tar would not be a simple matter of persuasion, I could show it objectively.

Yes! This is the discussion I'm hoping to delve into. Not everything is subjective, and I think, even most things we say are preferentially subjective, have objective backing. "Matter of taste" is not always arbitrary - there are usually reasons. However, people usually speak of "matter of taste" as if it has nothing to do with the objective world around them; it is only someone's opinion, they say.

However, we must also keep in mind that "best" is a bit vague, so, even if there is objective backing for why we have said such a thing, our choice of words is not good. We must be clear about what exactly we find desirable, good, whatever.

So, I think, there very well could be objective backing to claims such as, "Rape is wrong".


Thanks!

Well, I guess the time has come for someone to show that ice-cream tastes better than tar, or that rape is bad. Ready? on your mark? Go!

Well, it is definitely about time. We're almost in 2010 and still not one of us has proven that icecream tastes better than tar. We're a miserable species, us humans.

Well, I guess the time has come for someone to show that ice-cream tastes better than tar, or that rape is wrong. Ready? on your mark? Go!

But you might want to look at this first, so you can anticipate the answer.

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taste bud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






You have to work with what you've got. There's certainly no inherent feature of tar that makes it taste worse than ice cream, for all I know there are animals that eat tar. But we don't need a universal "tastes good". Tastes good to humans is the relevant one (or to dogs if we're making dog food). Same with morals.

There's certainly no inherent feature of tar that makes it taste worse than ice cream, for all I know there are animals that eat tar.

Are you so sure? Is it implausible to think that there may be a property in tar which makes it unappealing to most every creature?

How is it the same with morals?

Are you so sure? Is it implausible to think that there may be a property in tar which makes it unappealing to most every creature?

Wood tar is also available diluted as tar water, which has numerous uses:

• As a flavoring for candies (e.g. Terva Leijona) and alcohol (Terva Viina)"
  

:perplexed:

That may be true.Indeed, I have little doubt but that it is true. But, what if there were a disagreement? How would it be settled? (I mean, a disagreement about whether ice-cream tastes better than tar).

However, people usually speak of "matter of taste" as if it has nothing to do with the objective world around them; it is only someone's opinion, they say.