2+2=4 is true given the commonly accepted definitions of the terms involved. Given an assumed systemization of morality moral statements could be “true” relative to that systematization in the same sense that 2+2=4 is true relative to commonly accepted arithmetic. However, I don’t consider this a particularly useful way of thinking about morality.
any ought-statement can be converted (in principle) into a “pure” ought-statement by rephrasing it as an implication of the original statement from a sufficiently detailed set of factual assumptions.
10.same as 9
Of course few to no people will read this but...
yes, they are different 2-4 empirical questions
no
n/a
no sense
2+2=4 is true given the commonly accepted definitions of the terms involved. Given an assumed systemization of morality moral statements could be “true” relative to that systematization in the same sense that 2+2=4 is true relative to commonly accepted arithmetic. However, I don’t consider this a particularly useful way of thinking about morality.
any ought-statement can be converted (in principle) into a “pure” ought-statement by rephrasing it as an implication of the original statement from a sufficiently detailed set of factual assumptions. 10.same as 9