Re: Can there be a truth without a truthmaker?

On 4/7/2024 4:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.apr.2024 om 15:57 schreef olcott:

On 4/6/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-06 01:26:49 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:57:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>

There are only two kinds of truth:
(a) Analytic truth where expressions of language are true on the basis
of their meaning. Example: "All dogs are animals."
>
(b) Empirical truth, expressions of language that rely on sense data
from the sense organs. Example: "There is a dog in my living room right
now."

>
Which kind of truth is that statement?

>
It is an analytic truth as it is true by the meaning of the words.
In particular, Olcott doesn't use the word "truth" for any other
kind, although someone else might say, e.g., that a moral truth is
a truth, too.
>

>
A moral "truth" is often no more than an opinion.
It seems to me that morality can only be correctly addressed
through consequentialism. Bereft of a harmful effect there
can be no wrong.

 That, of course, depends on how "harmful" and "wrong" are understood. It can easily become a cyclic reasoning.
 

All knowledge is stored in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) inheritance hierarchy acyclic  directed graph. Harm must be actual harm not mere imaginary harm
of failure to comply with arbitrary standards. Choosing the best
value system is the key to laying the proper foundation for morality.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer